Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eurocommerce

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. Overall consensus is for the article to be retained. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:53, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Eurocommerce

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

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. " It was deprodded by User:Subtropical-man with no rationale on talk (despite the fact that I explicitly asked for one in the PROD) and a court edit summary "WP:DEPROD - disputed". Since the deprodded didn't bother with any meaningful rationale, I will just repeat my prod rationale, and add this: I discussed in my Signpost Op-Ed, this is a good example of Yellow-Pages like company spam. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:43, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Obviously notable. Just go to the trade association's website, click on the our members section, click on any of the national associations, and go to their websites and search for "Eurocommerce". For example British Retail Consortium describes Eurocommerce as "our EU trade association Eurocommerce" [1] and says "BRC is a member of EuroCommerce, our European umbrella association" [2]. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:01, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- And which part of GNG or NCOMPANY does that satisfy? Those companies may file the same tax form or use the same standard issue papaerclip, which does not make that tax form or paperclip notable. Notability is not inherited, so if notable company belons to some umbrealla organization, it does not make that umbrella organization notable. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:58, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The significance of this pan-European trade organization is clear from the news sources. Simple searches of the word "EuroCommerce", limited to various top-echelon news sources like nytimes.com, wsj.com, theguardian.com, etc., turn up dozens of examples of news stories that cover the activities of this important organization. On the other hand, the current version of the article reads very much like a promotional mission statement: flack phrasing like "EuroCommerce is the official European social partner for the retail and wholesale sector, and plays an active role in European social dialogue" and "EuroCommerce brings together the expertise of its members and secretariat to help inform and contribute to debate in a range of policies" is far from the ideal. So I think we should keep this page, but I would also support stubbing it. --Arxiloxos (talk) 20:13, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you show us some of those news sources? I couldn't and still cannot find any that satisfy the requirement of in-depth (not in passing) coverage, or that are reliable. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:58, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:43, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:43, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:43, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and stub, per Arxiloxos.--Ddcm8991 (talk) 17:59, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete at best as the current article's noticeable promotional tone is of concern and unless this can be immediately better improved, it's still questionable. Delete for now and restart if needed. SwisterTwister talk 07:34, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer: The above delete opinion was typed in and saved only 1 minute 40 seconds after the user's delete !vote in another deletion debate. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 09:43, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:55, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Though the tone of it seriously needs to be changed so it doesn't read like an advert.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikolaiho (talk • contribs) 04:59, May 9, 2016‎ (UTC)
- Sigh. WP:JUSTAVOTE has no place in the deletion discussion, through the rest of the comment above is valid - but as a comment. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:50, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- ok then. My reason to keep is the same as what the people above with the same opinion stated. NikolaiHo 03:44, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:14, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and cut the quasi promo. The organization is 23+ years old, and there are plenty of sources that can be referenced, below is just a handful I have added, and subject meets WP:ORGDEPTH through non-trivial coverage in reliable, secondary sources.

Great Britain. Parliament. House of Lords. European Union Committee (2009). EU Consumer Rights Directive: Evidence. The Stationery Office. pp. 58–. ISBN 978-0-10-844459-3.
Andrew Martin; George Ross (1999). The Brave New World of European Labor: European Trade Unions at the Millennium. Berghahn Books. pp. 339–. ISBN 978-1-57181-168-4.
Meike Rodekamp (17 June 2013). Their Members' Voice: Civil Society Organisations in the European Union. Springer Science & Business Media. pp. 166–. ISBN 978-3-658-02213-6.
Douglas R. Imig (2001). Contentious Europeans: Protest and Politics in an Emerging Polity. Rowman & Littlefield. pp. 223–. ISBN 978-0-7425-0084-6.
Thomas Bernauer (28 June 2016). Genes, Trade, and Regulation: The Seeds of Conflict in Food Biotechnology. Princeton University Press. pp. 87–. ISBN 978-1-4008-8013-3.
Justin Greenwood (1995). European Casebook on Business Alliances. Prentice Hall. pp. 119–. ISBN 978-0-13-338039-2. About sixty EC officials attended the annual European Day of Commerce during which Euro- Commerce tries to give ... For example, in its first year of existence (1993), EuroCommerce participated in exercises on: the company-feedback ...
Wolfgang Lecher; Hans-Wolfgang Platzer (11 September 2002). European Union - European Industrial Relations?: Global Challenge, National Development and Transitional Dynamics. Routledge. pp. 106–. ISBN 978-1-134-72489-5.
Vacher's European Companion. 89-91. A. S. Kerswil Limited. 1994. pp. 188–.

Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 09:32, 14 May 2016 (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.