Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eurofins Scientific
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. MBisanz talk 03:04, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Eurofins Scientific (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not a notable company. Article is unsourced and main author (Eurofins Lux) has an obvious conflict of interest by their name. If even the PR agent cannot come up with any independent sources, then it must be un-notable indeed. Spar-stangled (talk) 20:45, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000(talk) 17:41, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You seem to have a grossly inflated view of the ability of PR agents. Phil Bridger (talk) 00:14, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The article needs to be properly cited, but the company employs 10,000 people and there exist many third party sources. - MrX 22:00, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Number of employees is not a criterion for notability. If sources exist, by all means cite them. Without independent reliable sources, no article can exist. Spar-stangled (talk) 21:37, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps not a criterion for notability, but certainly a strong indicator of notability. I get 1270 news references when I click on the news link above and 343 newspaper articles from NewsBank. It is definitely a notable company. Whether anyone cares enough to add any of these references is another matter. - MrX 22:03, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Number of employees is not a criterion for notability. If sources exist, by all means cite them. Without independent reliable sources, no article can exist. Spar-stangled (talk) 21:37, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No references. Not notable. LogicalCreator (talk) 02:11, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No references ≢ not notable. Phil Bridger (talk) 00:14, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. 10K employees, $1B revenues, and publicly listed makes it notable. Independent coverage is aplenty and easy to find in goog news, although most is not in English (as expected). [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] etc. Nominator is suspect to be a sockpuppet of a banned user, with a reputation for trolling. Tijfo098 (talk) 09:21, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I'm finding 6,000+ news articles with 1,500 having Eurofins Scientific in the title alone. However, as I scroll through them, I'm seeing press release after press release. There also are many that have Eurofins Scientific among a string of names and many that merely report on the stock status. I'm not going to look through them all. Between that much press coverage, 10K employees, $1B revenues, there probably is enough independent reliable source information for a stand alone article. I think it would be hard to wade through all the non independent/non reliable sources to find WP:GNG sources to properly cite the article and achieve a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 12:37, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Luckily, I've done that work already. You can just look at the further reading section in the article. There's actually a lot more independent coverage than that, I've just selected those articles that had most background info and/or analysis. Both Capital (French magazine) and L'Usine nouvelle have a lot of short stories about Eurofins buying this or that company (and so does the Reuters feed on them). I've not included any interviews because I found them rather superficial. Tijfo098 (talk) 15:35, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Which I appreciate. I've no interest in sifting through the PRs and I don't read French, so I don't think I can post an iVote on the matter. I'm on the fence as to whether the AfD nomination was legitimate. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 04:00, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Luckily, I've done that work already. You can just look at the further reading section in the article. There's actually a lot more independent coverage than that, I've just selected those articles that had most background info and/or analysis. Both Capital (French magazine) and L'Usine nouvelle have a lot of short stories about Eurofins buying this or that company (and so does the Reuters feed on them). I've not included any interviews because I found them rather superficial. Tijfo098 (talk) 15:35, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - This company passes WP:CORPDEPTH per the independent sources comprised of significant coverage about it that were added to the article by User:Tijfo098. Regarding the nomination for deletion being partially based upon the article being unsourced at the time of its nomination, please note that per WP:NRVE, topic notability is not correlated with whether or not articles have sources in them: "The absence of citations in an article (as distinct from the non-existence of sources) does not indicate that the subject is not notable." See WP:N and WP:GNG for further information. Northamerica1000(talk) 17:39, 25 October 2012 (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.