Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Votorantim Celulose e Papel

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 redirect to Fibria. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:25, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Votorantim Celulose e Papel

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

This article was created by the sockmaster User:Edson Rosa. They have created many non-notable companies. This article has no sources establishing notability and I could find no substantial coverage establishing notability. I recognize that language could be an issue in establishing notability, so if this company is regionally, perhaps someone can find an independent reliable source. I am One of Many (talk) 17:35, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:02, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:02, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I noticed that an IP added the category of defunct companies in Brazil to this article. Does anyone know if it really is defunct? I am One of Many (talk) 22:53, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Redirect to Fibria. Nothing to merge, really, but also no basis for deletion - a clearly notable component of a larger notable enterprise, a LatAm top 40 company. A poorly thought-out nomination. -- Y not? 14:11, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 00:19, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Another very large and notable South American company. What's with these noms? Candleabracadabra (talk) 01:17, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I think the nominator believed the sockpuppeteer original editor simply produced a ton of non-notable articles. Sadly, he has seemingly nominated tons of them without adequately examining their notability. This is probably because of a language barrier and a predisposition to believe these sock-authored articles aren't notable, but still, all articles should be properly examined prior to being brought to AfD. NewAccount4Me (talk) 20:22, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The sockpuppeteer in question had produced many of non-notable articles over the years according to previous speedy deletion notifications on their talk pages and AfDs. All of the articles I nominated had no references after years of requesting them. I checked each one for notability, but knowledge of the languages and region created issues I could not resolve. About a third of the socks' creations did not have notability that I could be sure about. I'm happy if all of them are kept because there will have been verification by the apparently very few editors capable of making these decisions. Without verifiability and sources, articles in Wikipedia and nothing more than stories. I am One of Many (talk) 14:14, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

perhaps it would be better for someone with knowledge of the language and knowledge of the region to screen these. I don't try to sort out what articles of a group are worth saving in subjects I do not understand. I don't nominate articles for being unsourced unless I know enough to make a try at looking for sources. Perhaps the solution is to consider inclusion of companies on a basis of verified size, not sourcing. I'd set the level for that pretty high, and assume that all companies beyond , say .$100 or $200 million in sales will certainly prove to have sources. Another screening in inclusion in a major stock exchange--I'd again be discriminating here, but I would include the NYSE. 'DGG (at NYPL) (talk) 20:12, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DGG, I agree with you completely. Of the articles I screened, about 2/3 looked notable independent of knowing the languages–I found articles about the company in reliable sources. Many of these I added references to. I then made the bold move of proposing the remaining 1/3 for which I had some doubt about, knowing that they would get screened. In retrospect, I probably should have contacted some of the admins who regularly work at AfD to get a pre-screening of the articles. Even though I may not have done this in the best way, the result is still good for Wikipedia: articles created by problematic editors are getting systematically screened with editors with the appropriate background knowledge. --I am One of Many (talk) 01:25, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Fibria as suggested above. Our usual practice is to keep the material under the most recent name, unless it gets much too complicated. I don;t consider the nature of the editor who created it relevant when it's material as straightforward as this. Anyone should be able to edit, if they edit properly, and the criterion for properly is the nature of what they add. 'DGG (at NYPL) (talk) 20:21, 29 August 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.