Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MARAIS

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 no consensus. v/r - T P 23:25, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

MARAIS

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

Although this company appears to have many connection to government contracts, this article feels like a resume. What is WP:N about this company? Phearson (talk) 06:19, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Phearson, I wrote the article about Marais and the trenching machines last week, actually I am still discovering Wikipedia. What do you suggest me to change in the article? you said that it feels like a resume and I would like to give another impression. Several trenching and heavy equipment companies just give an overview of their history. Let me know what do you think. Thank you in advance. Cvergnolle (talk) 08:34, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The problem with the article is that it isn't notable enough under WP:CORP. The company doesn't seem to have been written about in any significant way by sources that could be considered reliable, or fully independent of the company. The references given in the article are given for the parts of the article that couldn't be considered controversial and most of these are self-published. I suspect that due to the apparent lack of notability it would be difficult to bring the article up to a standard that makes it useful. If the company becomes notable then there would be no problem with recreating the article at that point, but at this time there isn't significant depth of coverage to warrant an article. --Mrmatiko (talk) 07:45, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think that this article has enough significant sources, because when I see the wiki pages of the 2 other trencher companies,this page has probably better references than the others. I can realy see different significant sources from different countries. --Amerceron (talk) 16:55, 7 June 2011 (UTC) — Amerceron (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Comment It's not so much about the sources for the information that is there (5 of which are used to reference a single piece of uncontroversial information), it's more about the notability of the company. The other two companies that you are referring to have supported statements of awards that the company has won from external sources, this suggests notability. There are still problems with these articles, but they are entirely separate from this discussion. --Mrmatiko (talk) 15:45, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:OSE Phearson (talk) 16:34, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:41, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:42, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: WikiProject Business has been notified. Comte0 (talk) 12:24, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, and comment Generally speaking, the key to meeting en.wikipedia's notability rules is whether the subject has been substantially discussed by independent sources. Anything written by Marais is of little use. Similarly, a passing mention in an article about somebody else using a Marais product proves nothing. What you need is more stuff like this and this and this - I think that there are enough sources like that to show Marais is notable, but only just. As far as I can tell, articles like this and this aren't really about Marais, per se - they might be useful to verify individual statements in an article but not to establish notability. Similarly, this might be hosted on an Australian government website, but it seems to have been written by Marais. bobrayner (talk) 13:53, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:20, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL generate several relevant results from http://Francebtp.org/. Regards, Comte0 (talk) 20:22, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep by now, this article seems to have enough relevant sources to meet en.wikipedia's notabilty rules. best regards, --SEMEYN (talk) 19:53, 19 June 2011

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.