Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alpura (company)

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. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 12:23, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alpura (company)[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Too promotional and the sources are primary. Rodney Araujo Tell me - My contributions 19:29, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 September 19. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:49, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:57, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:57, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 17:10, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Just scrolling through the first 3 pages of a google books search revealed multiple independent RS with significant coverage that would easily pass WP:NCORP. Clearly WP:BEFORE was not followed.4meter4 (talk) 22:39, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:24, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the nomination cites fixable problems rather than reasons for deletion. St★lwart¹¹¹ 00:59, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per the above, once the promotional material is redacted and once secondary sources are added (like these ones [1][2]), this could be an excellent article. Sources like those obviously do meet SIGCOV requirements. Patiodweller (talk) 19:34, 4 October 2021 (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.