Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oriflame
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 Non-Admin Closure. Tiddly-Tom 07:10, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oriflame[edit]
Fails WP:CORP. Article contains no evidence of notability - there are no references to independent coverage; the one "outside" reference is a reprint of a company filing. Entire article content is advertising or trivial. Argyriou (talk) 19:09, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and cleanup. Notability is asserted in the article to some extent - it is a relatively large multinational company, listed on a major stock exchange and with a presence in almost 60 countries. Following the link in the article to its listing on OMX reveals it has a market cap of over 18 billion SEK (almost €2 billion). Sure, it needs quite a cleanup, but it doesn't fail WP:CORP in my eyes. Gr1st (talk) 19:36, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I think the company passes WP:CORP and is therefore notable. matt91486 (talk) 21:35, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Question - what part of A company, corporation, organization, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of coverage in secondary sources. has been satisfied by this article? Argyriou (talk) 22:10, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, since you nominated it, you should have done due diligence with a simple Google search, since you're supposed to do that before nominating. On the first page of Google hits, there's general third party news for them in regarding to outsourcing and product development. Those are secondary sources about the company. Obviously this isn't a particularly thorough search and I'm sure there are better sources than that, probably particularly in Swedish. matt91486 (talk) 22:57, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Additionally, there are 614 results for Oriflame in the Access World News database, a collection of third party news sources in the English language. Admittedly, many of these are stock reports, etc from business sources, but the company is well covered. But most importantly, here's a substantial feature article here. matt91486 (talk) 23:02, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Added a news report from forbes.com as a source in the article - there are plenty more where that came from. Surely WP:CORP is unequivocally satisfied now? Gr1st (talk) 23:18, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Additionally, there are 614 results for Oriflame in the Access World News database, a collection of third party news sources in the English language. Admittedly, many of these are stock reports, etc from business sources, but the company is well covered. But most importantly, here's a substantial feature article here. matt91486 (talk) 23:02, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, since you nominated it, you should have done due diligence with a simple Google search, since you're supposed to do that before nominating. On the first page of Google hits, there's general third party news for them in regarding to outsourcing and product development. Those are secondary sources about the company. Obviously this isn't a particularly thorough search and I'm sure there are better sources than that, probably particularly in Swedish. matt91486 (talk) 22:57, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Question - what part of A company, corporation, organization, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of coverage in secondary sources. has been satisfied by this article? Argyriou (talk) 22:10, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- keep - Notability clearly asserted in the article text and now referenced as well. It might have been less effort for the nominator to dig up that forbes reference himself instead of wasting other people's time with a prod and an afd. It certainly would have been in better style. --Latebird (talk) 05:36, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The company is notable as proved by sources. Andrzej Kmicic (talk) 06:09, 5 February 2008 (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.