Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sucden

: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. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 17:19, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

=[[Sucden]]=

:{{la|Sucden}} ([{{fullurl:Sucden|wpReason={{urlencode: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sucden}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

Article about non-notable company with no third-party reference sources since July 2008, failing to satisfy the notability criteria of Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). --DAJF (talk) 15:12, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Keep. I like to assume good faith, but I can't believe that the nominator made any effort whatsoever to check for sources. When I removed the prod tag from this I pointed out that thousands of reliable sources are available from [http://news.google.co.uk/archivesearch?q=Sucden&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&client=firefox-a&hl=en&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tab=pn Google News archive] and [http://books.google.co.uk/books?q=Sucden&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&client=firefox-a&hl=en&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wp Google Books] searches. If the nominator is concerned about references not being in the article the answer is to add some of these, not to nominate the article for deletion. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:14, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep - there is [http://www.finalternatives.com/node/6818 this news article] about them, and a google book search shows them being well-established with a "triumphant swap of sugar between Cuba and the USSR." [http://books.google.ca/books?id=WJ62AAAAIAAJ&q=Sucden&dq=Sucden&pgis=1]. There a lot more entries but the two shown are sufficient to demontrate notability and availability of sources.-- Whpq (talk) 17:57, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep The sources provided clearly indicates that this company is notable. --J.Mundo (talk) 14:24, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

: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.