Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fabral
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. John254 04:33, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fabral[edit]
Unreferenced article about an apparently nonnotable vehicle manufacturer. Fabral santana -wikipedia only gets a couple of hundred Google hits, and many of these are unrelated to the vehicles. This is a Brazilian company, so maybe others can determine if there are sources to show notability and make this into a keepable article. Appears to fail WP:N WP:CORP and WP:RS Inkpaduta 18:22, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Quarl (talk) 05:21, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no assertion of notability in the article and no evidence of notability that I can find (albeit with zero knowledge of Portuguese). Kla'quot 05:46, 11 February 2007 (UTC)Neutral The sources don't look particularly convincing. One appears to be a short directory entry, one centers on products made by the company rather than the company, and one is apparently about Fabral's parent company. Kla'quot 03:33, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]- Note: This debate has been included in the list of transportation-related deletions. -- Eastmain 06:20, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletions. -- Eastmain 06:20, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I added some references, which I think are enough to establish notability. --Eastmain 06:20, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I added a fourth ref. Someone more fluent in Portuguese needs to translate what's linked to and pad this out, as it's barely even a stub right now, but the references establish notability; the one I added mentions annual (planned) production of almost 17,000 vehicles in 2003. I'd have voted to delete without User:Eastmain's contributions, though. --DeLarge 12:11, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep Never heard of them, but after reading the IstoÉ link I'm nearly convinced. This article may have simply been created prematurely; I'll keep an eye out for them and if and as they become more notable, I'll try and flesh out the article. Fvasconcellos 20:55, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Inkpaduta, please think thrice before nominating an article for deletion. You obviously don't have much experience on WP, so I suggest you please read the policies you have mentioned in your nom. V60 VTalk · VDemolitions 01:59, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment -- WP:AGF, and don't bite the newbie either. 13 completed AfD nomination at the time of writing, of which eight were deleted (one speedily) and three redirected ("in lieu of deletion"). Only Chen Li (no consensus) and Minnesota State Highway 127 survived unscathed. Even this article was well worthy of deletion before others worked on it. I'd say he seems to have a very good understanding of wikipolicies for such an "inexperienced" editor. --DeLarge 09:57, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I click on random articles. If one is a stub, I look for sources to make it into a better article. Sometimes I nominate for deletion. This one had lingered for 6 months with no additions and no sources. No one was actively adding sources or details to it, so adding templates to it that it needed improvement did not look like a productive move. The WP:N standard says "A company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works, the source of which is both: independent of the company, corporation, organization or group itself, or of the product's or service's manufacturer or vendor, and reliable. A Google search did not disclose such sources. I asked that others with better access to Portuguese sources try to add some. In the end if the article is kept but with sources, then Wikipedia is a better encyclopedia. If it is deleted because good sources cannot be found at this time to bring the article up to meet the standards cited, then Wikipedia is a better encyclopedia. The nomination was made in good faith and not just to be nominating something randomly through lack of having read the policies cited. Inkpaduta 18:34, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I realize that a google search for Fabral alone will generate a lot of irrelevant hits. Sometimes more sophisticated search techniques can turn up reliable sources. This can include googling a combination of words, such as the manufacturer's name and its city, or its country, or its product together, or searching on other databases which may be available to you free of charge through your city library or university library. In this case, I checked the Portuguese Wikipedia to see if it had an article on the company. It didn't, but if such a page existed, it would have saved a lot of time. This isn't intended to criticize any other editors; I just want to explain some of my techniques for expanding articles when there is some time pressure involved. --Eastmain 18:46, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I click on random articles. If one is a stub, I look for sources to make it into a better article. Sometimes I nominate for deletion. This one had lingered for 6 months with no additions and no sources. No one was actively adding sources or details to it, so adding templates to it that it needed improvement did not look like a productive move. The WP:N standard says "A company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works, the source of which is both: independent of the company, corporation, organization or group itself, or of the product's or service's manufacturer or vendor, and reliable. A Google search did not disclose such sources. I asked that others with better access to Portuguese sources try to add some. In the end if the article is kept but with sources, then Wikipedia is a better encyclopedia. If it is deleted because good sources cannot be found at this time to bring the article up to meet the standards cited, then Wikipedia is a better encyclopedia. The nomination was made in good faith and not just to be nominating something randomly through lack of having read the policies cited. Inkpaduta 18:34, 12 February 2007 (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.