Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rossi Motoriduttori

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 delete and redirect to Habasit Holding. Randykitty (talk) 12:43, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rossi Motoriduttori[edit]

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

Article was dePRODed with the comment that the sources are valid because they are all taken from the company web site, Concern was: Unsourced. No major claims of importance or significance (WP:ORG). Wikipedia is not a directory. WP:NOTYELLOW. See WP:PRIMARY. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:16, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Notability cannot be established from primary sources alone. Ceosad (talk) 04:28, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It seems easy to find more sources which demonstrate notability such as this. See WP:BEFORE. Andrew D. (talk) 20:21, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at this source. Being mentioned in a case study is not the stuff notability is made of. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:49, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is exactly the stuff notability is made of. Per the WP:GNG, such a source is independent, reliable and detailed. Q.E.D. Andrew D. (talk) 23:20, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:44, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:44, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if it can actually be improved as I also found links at Books, News, browser and Highbeam but delete if it cannot be immediately improved and can simply be restarted later. SwisterTwister talk 06:24, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:32, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Hoping to get someone with more Italian reference experience involved - looks like it could be notable, but I am unsure. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:24, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:24, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of notability. If somebody believes they can find the sources to back it up, I have no problem with restoring this to their user space, but lacking that, delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:47, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there is evidence of notability, as presented above. RoySmith seems to have some idiosyncratic concept of notability which does not conform to our guideline. Andrew D. (talk) 23:20, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, or Redirect to Habasit Holding, of which it is a subsidiary. I can find nothing beyond passing mentions in independent sources, so I do not believe this subsidiary has any real claim to notability. Reyk _YO! 08:37, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CORPDEPTH, although I won't object to a redirect per Reyk to the article of the parent Aktiengesellschaft. Bearian (talk) 16:15, 30 October 2015 (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.