Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SOCEP Constanţa

The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

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. Nominator has withdrawn but this discussion has been open long enough and has enough participation for a "keep" close. Though there is one outstanding delete !vote, his sourcing concerns appear to have been addressed. Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:34, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SOCEP Constanţa

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No refs. Notability. Looks like a corporate website. The Eskimo (talk) 15:35, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources to prove notability. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 17:45, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP: Alinasy 9 (talk · contribs) likely intended this to be an advertisement, so the user constantly returns to revert my addition of sources back to the spammy version absent of sources. I have restored the sources. Notability is clearly established. Protector of Wiki (talk) 18:23, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Two of the sources are in Romanian and can't be verified by an English speaking WP user. That's not very clear. The Eskimo (talk) 18:58, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

...*facepalms* Please read WP:NONENG. If no alternative sources are available in English, then an article is fine with having non-English sources. It does not affect notability or verifiability in any way to have non-English sources. Silver seren^C 22:42, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Doesn't look at all spammy now. A port handling 300,000 TEU's annualy is pretty sizeable. Google finance data looks like this is a fairly big outfit, relatively speaking. I doubt we have specific notability criteria for ports or port authorities but if we did I suspect this would pass. Pedro : Chat 20:33, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I speak Romanian and I'm going to say neutral, at best a weak keep. The Romanian sources are actually fairly reliable and do deal with the company. I suggest contacting User:Bine Mai, who's also Romanian but who wrote Port of Constanţa as well as articles on numerous Romanian companies - he's by far the expert on this. - Biruitorul ^Talk 20:34, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Alpha Quadrant ^talk 21:13, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I don't see how it is a advertisement. The article is written in a neutral point of view and is adequately sourced. --Alpha Quadrant ^talk 21:16, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the article was "adequately sourced", what was the point of nominating it for rescue? Protector of Wiki (talk) 22:28, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In order to seek assistance for further improvements from the editor community in making the article better to serve the project. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:42, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep With coverage in Capital, Ziarul Financiar, Curierul Naţional, and a number of others, I don't see how this company couldn't be notable. Silver seren^C 22:54, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - Appears to be a large organization which is probably notable, although I can't personally verify the sources. SnottyWong ^converse 23:24, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - Appears to be a large organisation as said above.though lot of clean up required.LinguisticGeek 06:10, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per Biruitorul. Strongly suggest that translations of the Romanian sources be provided on the talk page to show notability so that future editors do not continue to question it. —UncleDouggie (talk) 08:18, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have added English translation links to the sources. Silver seren^C 15:47, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Looks like a substantial organisation to me. If even more refs are needed (either to underline notability, or just to flesh out the content a bit) I'll happily contribute. I don't think the article looked like an advert at the time the AfD was raised - it just described the business' activities. bobrayner (talk) 18:12, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:21, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:21, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and with respects to the nominator suggest he consider a polite withdrawal at this point. The article has been cleaned up and sourced since nomination... and non-English sources are valid if their English equivalents do not exist. And a note to a closer... the article was improved and sources added after the one delete vote offered his opinion. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:42, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Next time click on a Google news search BEFORE you nominate something. 129 results, some of them surely notable. Dream Focus 02:47, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Considering initially there were no references, and the article uses vague generalities like "one of the largest" etc...not to mention that when sources were added half of them were in a foreign language or just basic stock exchange info (and BTW the # of Google results may mean newsworthy, but not necessarily wp:Note) I would suggest that you wp:AGF and leave your snarky comments at the door next time you vote on an wp:AFD.

And since this AFD request resulted in bringing attention to this article, as well as the addition of sources thereby making Wikipedia just a little bit better, I apologize for wasting User: Dream Focus's time, and would request an admin close this AFD as there appears to be a strong consensus to KEEP. The Eskimo (talk) 14:16, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.