Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Veolia Energy-Dalkia


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   keep. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 10:23, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Veolia Energy-Dalkia

 * – ( View AfD View log )

This company's only claim to fame appears to be its unsourced claim of being the "leader in energy services in Europe". There are no 3rd-party sources. The PROD was removed claiming that "due diligence shows PROD to be invalid", but nothing was added except a tag. Thus it appears to fail WP:CORP. Reaper Eternal (talk) 00:41, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions.  -- Reaper Eternal (talk) 00:41, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  -- Reaper Eternal (talk) 00:42, 25 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - Appears to be a promotional article. CycloneGU (talk) 00:44, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep as notable. A major component in a very large multinational corporation. Of course it needs expansion and sources, but that is not grounds for deletion. Rather than being spammy, it rather fails for saying too little. --AJHingston (talk) 08:57, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Where's the proof? I went through pages of searches after my PROD was removed, and the only place that claims it "is a leading energy services company" is the company's own website. There are also really no third-party sources that I could find which discuss the company in detail. Thus it fails WP:CORP and WP:GNG. Reaper Eternal (talk) 10:35, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The proof is in the Google Books and News searches linked below. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:14, 25 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment. More useful searches than the ones linked above: . Phil Bridger (talk) 09:02, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete, it's not needed. It's already covered in Veolia Environnement. The relevant section of that article gives more info about the subject than the article proposed for deletion. Asnac (talk) 12:15, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * As things stand a redirect would probably do. But it is a major weakness of Wikipedia that a commercial enterprise on this scale is reduced to a couple of lines. Wiki guidelines are largely at fault, I fear. Almost any information will come from the organisation itself, especially encyclopaedic information about finances, employees, and activities. So called third party sources are almost entirely dependent on material published by the company (if they differ they are likely to be wrong) and analysis is commercially valuable and not freely available. Much the same tends to apply to the public sector. But it really should not be necessary to question the notability of an organisation with a turnover in the billions of Euros. --AJHingston (talk) 13:19, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 00:13, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan Talk Contributions 21:19, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Keep, as it seems that my contributions to the debate don't get taken into account unless I preface them with that word in bold. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:08, 10 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - Sources exist to establish notability and expand the article. Being a "leading" company is press release bullpiffle, and pretty much most companies make such claims. -- Whpq (talk) 14:19, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Of course, but not many divisions of multinationals have a turnover of around 12 billion US dollars, roughly equal to the GDP of Albania and only just short of that of Iceland! Since the accounts are audited and the company reports regulated by law they would seem to provide a sufficiently reliable source for a more factual account. --AJHingston (talk) 23:19, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.