Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Domsjö Fabriker

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:11, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Domsjö Fabriker

[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)

Tthe article does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. Bigneeerman (talk) 17:47, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Sweden. Shellwood (talk) 18:34, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the Swedish article on the company has 3 sources, including a whole book on the subject,

Nylander, Nils (1990). En basindustri blir till: Domsjö sulfitfabriks 30 första år. Bjästa: Cewe-förl. Libris 7647092. ISBN 91-7542-187-9

and a quick search finds another book,

Perstad, Emil; CeWe-förl.) (1981). Gamla Örnsköldsvik och Domsjö sulfitfabrik : människor och episoder (in Swedish). Bjästa: CeWe-förlag/CeWe-pool. ISBN 91-7542-051-1. OCLC 186338857.

Together with the source already in the article, this certainly establishes notability. I'd point out that the Swedish Wikipedia article is far more substantial than the English one, with a further image also. Other sources include

Environmental adaptation, technology development and competition by Ann-Kristin Bergquist and Kristina Söderholm; the 28-page paper "examine[s] how a single individual mill, the sulphite pulp producer, Domsjö sulphite mill with its company MoDo, on a long term basis adapted to the transformation pressure from increasing international competition and national environmental regulation during the 1960s to the 1990s."

In short, the Domsjö sulphite mill is immediately seen to be notable. I observe that nom for this AfD has also nominated several other industrial articles, claiming all of them lack CORPDEPTH and ORGIND. If those nominations are anything like as poorly researched as this one evidently was, it would be as well for all of them to be withdrawn, with more attention to WP:BEFORE in future. But perhaps this one article was nominated in error. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:42, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I agree with Chiswick Chap that this is the natural home of any updates about the mill, which is significant and has been running since 1903. I've added a few simple sources to the article, expanding it somewhat. //Julle (talk) 21:22, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a significant industrial plant with a long history, now updated to demonstrate this. As for depth there is a dozen books available in swedish libraries detailing parts of the plant's history (or that of its immediate surroundings), so there's opportunity for further expansion. Draken Bowser (talk) 09:56, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: As per all of the above. ChristinaNY (talk) 05:20, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per User:Chiswick Chap. Tomas e (talk) 12:04, 20 June 2022 (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.