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

The result of the discussion was: keep . no consensus to delete DGG ( talk ) 05:22, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Lely (Company) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This was speedy-deleted. The deletion was brought to deletion review, where no clear consensus emerged. In accordance with a recent change in the DRV instructions, no-consensus in a WP:CSD discussion, no longer results in the status-quo being maintained, but may result in the article being brought to XfD. I do so now. This is a purely administrative action; I offer no opinion on the outcome. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:10, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural comment RoySmith, the new wording in the DRV instructions reads: If a speedy deletion is appealed, the closer should treat a lack of consensus as a direction to overturn the deletion, since it indicates that the deletion was not uncontroversial (which is a requirement of almost all criteria for speedy deletion). Any editor may then nominate the page at the appropriate deletion discussion forum. But such nomination is in no way required, if no editor sees reason to nominate. This was intended to discourage "purely administrative" nominations such as this, and help ensure that if there is a nomination, it is by an editor who actually believes that the article or page should be deleted, and can make a case for deletion. I would urge you not to make such administrative nominations in future. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 00:32, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandstein: @Jclemens: @SmokeyJoe: @DESiegel: @Cryptic: @Hut 8.5: @Dvanleerdam: pinging everybody who contributed to the DRV. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:14, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete On the assumption the original article was anything akin to this one, G11 was the only reasonable response. Further, a WP:BEFORE examination for notability indicates insufficient persistent or in-depth coverage in independent, third-party reliable sources to pas WP:NCORP; such coverage is there is seems composed almost solely of press releases, directory-style listings, and transient passing-mentions. — fortunavelut luna 14:18, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Keep Thanks to RoySmith for graciously responding to my request for reconsideration. First, I agree that this was NOT G11, in that there's nothing in the text as presented here that encourages one to buy their products or otherwise does more than describe the company. On the merits, however, a Google News search finds plenty of coverage of their products: Business Insider, Farmer's Weekly in the UK (although that looks semi-press-releaseish), Farm and Dairy. There's more, and those are clearly enough to establish that the company is significant enough in real life and has enough RS coverage to work on in draftspace. Jclemens (talk) 17:46, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify 'encourage[ing] one to buy their products' =/= a/the definition of WP:PROMO. — fortunavelut luna 17:58, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are you clarifying the definition, or asserting that there was sufficient promotional material there that G11 did, in fact, apply? If the former, fine, my definition wasn't exhaustive. If the latter, I fail to see how that article would be defined as unfixable in any way that would not encompass most of our corporation articles. Jclemens (talk) 06:07, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• weak keep. The only promotional word in this as it stands is "leading". It is in no way appropriate for g11 as it now stands, and if I found an article like this so tagged, I would decline the speedy and admonish the tagger. A G11 must be blatantly promotional, such that only a fundamental rewrite would cure it. A largely factual description that fails to establish notability does not thereby become promotional. (It is true that promotional is broader than advertising). That Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi has done a WP:BEFORE search (which I trust to have been through, knowing that editor) ads some weight to the argument for deletion (indeed this is the only weight it has). But let us give this some time. No search is completely comprehensive. If in, say, 6 months no better sources are presented, I would not oppose deletion. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 00:41, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Thank you Roy Smith for reversing DRV deletion decision. I think that the page did not meet the conditions for WP:CSD#G11 speedy deletion. I note that in mainspace, it would be quickly deleted as it presents no sources to meet WP:CORP, a fairly strict Wikipedia requirement aimed at keeping company promotion out of the encyclopedia. As a draft, I don't think it should be deleted until the author has had long enough a chance to add sources demonstrating independent third party coverage. By default, that period in draftspace is six months. What I wrote at DRV still applies, advice repeated here:

  User:Dvanleerdam, the guideline covering the usual decision process for whether this company will ever be suitable for inclusion is Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies), beginning with the statement: "... has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources". Wikipedia is not a directory of all companies, or of all big companies, successful companies, good companies, or any other variation of selection, except for companies that are already the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Before starting an article on any company, be sure to have multiple such sources, each all of (1) contains significant coverage; (2) source is reliable; (3) source, author, published are independent of the company; (4) the coverage is secondary source coverage, meaning it is commentary, comparisons, analysis, etc, and is not just repeating facts. A yet better way to get started is to find coverage of the company in existing articles, and improve content making mention in those articles. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:22, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

The page makes a fair claim of importance, but that is not enough. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:01, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I see enough GHITS to indicate that notability could plausibly be demonstrated. VQuakr (talk) 05:38, 11 July 2017 (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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.