Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eurostazioni

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 no consensus. --MuZemike 03:58, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eurostazioni[edit]

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

Fails WP:CORP. Could be redirected to Grandi Stazioni. Bbb23 (talk) 20:48, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:11, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:11, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect per nomination. This article is about a holding company with no particular claim to an encyclopedia entry. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:12, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Why redirect? Grandi Stazioni and Eurostazioni are two different companies with different shareholders.User:Lucifero4
Keep The company owns 40% of the company that manages Italy's 12 busiest railway stations. Its shareholders are member companies of some of Italy's most prominent groups of companies and the French national railway company. Its directors include some of Italy's best known business people. It is mentioned in numerous Italian language independent sources. Its position in the Italian economy is also a good example of the links between Italian business and government. Bahnfrend (talk) 01:13, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Adequate documentation available for major transportation company. This is the sort of subject where we need much more coverage. Our existing coverage in commercial subject is very unbalanced, with a emphasis of those companies who insert promotional articles. We can best deal with such promotionalism by pre-empting it, ourselves writing articles systematically on all major companies and commercial consortia of various sorts, such as this one. DGG ( talk ) 21:01, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The issue of promotional articles is just an example of WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS and, although I agree with your view on that, is not a justification for this article. How does this article satisfy notability guidelines? Are we going to have articles on all the holding companies, parents, sisters, and subsidiaries in a corporate chain just because one of them is notable and the work they do is important? To the extent it's even noteworthy, it can be handled in one article and doesn't justify a separate article for each legal entity.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:12, 26 December 2011 (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.