Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Majestic International

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 without prejudice to quick a renomination. Most Keep !votes did not adequately address the notability issues the article suffers from. But without any support for the nomination, it should be kept for now. Owen× ☎ 16:57, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Majestic International[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)

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

I do not see evidence this company's coverage is of the depth required to meet N:CORP and find no evidence of his coverage in my own search. There has been significant disruption around this article (explicitly not by the creator) and I'm bringing this here for a full discussion following the aborted Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Majestic International Company. Star Mississippi 17:34, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and United Arab Emirates. Star Mississippi 17:34, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:37, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think it's unusual that Majestic International focuses on providing logistics technologies is the only part of the article that actually says what this company does. Usually aside from acquisitions or mergers, saying what the services or products of a company are is the bulk of a business article, not a short sentence tacked on to the end of a paragraph. That's not a vote of deletion, just an observation that this is not your typical article on a company. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:34, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per my view the page meets WP:NEXIST (Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article), as I see that there is coverage outside the page too, and with such history the company possibly has the required depth of coverage. --BoraVoro (talk) 08:51, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to its multinational presence, historical significance since 1981, and notable achievements including recognition as a Great Place To Work. --Nord-We (talk) 11:44, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as WP:Before helped much. I've extensively researched the Majestic International subsidiaries and added to the page several big companies belonging to it, among which sport division, Majestic Steel USA company and Majestic Marine Engineering. I've included a lot of books and magazines in-depht coverage and see that there are even more when dig into history. The added coverage is from 1990s and 2000s, and also includes many recent features from various occasions. --Mind-blowing blow (talk) 07:29, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: If the entire basis of your view is "sources must exist", please link to some of those sources. Otherwise, your opinion will likely be discarded by the closing admin. This is not a ballot.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 16:00, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment semi'ed to stop the immediate disruption. If any admin wants to take it over since I did open the discussion, feel free. Constructive new users are welcome to use the Talk. Star Mississippi 02:47, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with new sources added and the scope and scale of the company was revealed. The page lacks style and may look promo, but it's notable now with new refs and sections added - that is why I changed and enlarged a little bit the first entry sentence to correspond the main text. --Old-AgedKid (talk) 16:10, 5 February 2024 (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.