Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vilomix

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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:53, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vilomix[edit]

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

Just another commercial enterprise. No depth of coverage outside its own website, and business directories. Shirt58 (talk) 11:10, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination. No depth of coverage, and no assertion of Notability Rehnn83 ^Talk 11:37, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: a redirect to the related Vilofoss might be appropriate, but that article is itself at WP:PROD. AllyD (talk) 13:06, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There is a related article on the German Wikipedia: [1] but despite a picture gallery of factories, it lacks references. Searches are turning up no more than a couple of passing mentions. A firm going about its business, but it fails WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 13:14, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
comment I speedy deleted the thing. I did not see it as meeting WP:GNG. A redirect to Viofloss is not, in my opinion, a good choice. Dloh cierekim 15:05, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid you have to review WP:CSD: GNG is irrelevant there. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:37, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify. It met CSD and was once deleted there under. Still don't see it meeting WP:GNG Dloh cierekim 21:43, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It still appears to be there? Neonchameleon (talk) 13:38, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. More than one article reviewer has tagged it for a7. With all the energetic assertion, there is as yet no backing by reliable sources Dloh cierekim 21:55, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 14:43, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 14:44, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:36, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:36, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

merge/redirect to parent (which I de-prodded) until fleshed out. A verifiable multibillion company. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:34, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, the verifiability is lacking as there are noverifiable 3rd party reliable sources in the article. If there were we would not be here. Search turned up empty, and the one source is not independent. Dloh cierekim 21:48, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, see my commentary on this page I was waiting for the introduction of significant coverage that would meet the WP:GNG. Still waiting. One would expect some coverage for a multi-billion dollar multi national company. Dloh cierekim 21:57, 20 December 2013 (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.