Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Breil (company)

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 Binda Group. Redirecting to Binda Group. Anything worth merging can be recovered from the article history. Randykitty (talk) 14:37, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Breil (company)

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

Fails WP:CORP... non-notable and almost promotional JMHamo (talk) 12:34, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 13:14, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

keep because is notable company of important industrial group and is not promotional absolutely. But I don't understand this user who has no reasons for his deletion's request and starts a lot of discussions: why?--Puccetto (talk) 16:20, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I did some light copy editing but the article, As of April 6, 2014^[update], looks promotional with peacock words. I vote to keep the article but edit the article to a stub. Also, the company meets Wiki notability. Eventually the article will be better. Geraldshields11 (talk) 15:40, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I did more copy edit to remove the promotonal items. Change my vote from weak keep to Keep. Geraldshields11 (talk) 15:53, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't believe this company is notable. JMHamo does have a reason for this AfD; WP:CORP. Also, I don't mean to judge, but you seem to at least communicate with User:Pagoprima, who created and did a lot of work on this page. Origamite (talk) 16:59, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak delete~~ I don't know whether this company is notable, but first of all the tone should be made more neutral than now: "beautiful women who perfectly embody the values and personality of the brand: strength, sensuality, daring and primal instinct", "its expression of modernity scratchy, with the sense of power that matter itself communicates with its charming color and with a clean and simple design, a perfect combination of the values of the brand." ... Kareldorado (talk) 07:09, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I removed sentence and now are you happy? May you to rewrite article?--Pagoprima (talk) 12:41, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it moves into the good direction. I hope that you see why other Wikipedians regard this as "almost promotional". Could you revise your comment about Hanowa? Kareldorado (talk) 20:01, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:05, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:05, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge and Redirect to Binda Group - Unambiguous advertisement about a company fails notability. No significant coverage in the reliable sources. However, there are few sources not establishing notability to support a standalone article on the subject, but it should be good enough to merge the present article into its parent company Binda Group and a redirect, if necessary could be created to that article section. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 20:42, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:10, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect per Anupmehra. I couldn't find enough in a Google search to ring the notability bell. The cited sources don't meet the requirements of WP:CORP. It's possible that there could be more in Italian and if some are found I am open to reconsideration. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:17, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Binda Group . None of the refs is independent with in depth coverage. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:52, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:CORP: notable intercontinental company and article is sourced enough--Ciofeca (talk) 13:15, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wellknown company with many dealers around the world: article improve needed--Teo Pitta (talk) 08:35, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:32, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I improved article and now it is a good stub--Pagoprima (talk) 15:16, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I still don't see enough reliable and verifiable sources for this to be pass WP:CORP. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:20, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A word of caution Out of deference to AGF I don't want to accuse anyone of anything specifically, but sock puppetry is a no no around here. Just saying... -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:33, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and merge reliably sourced, non-promotional material to Binda Group, until the time that content is expanded to the point that a WP:SPLIT becomes necessary. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 10:17, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep enforced because article was extended by reliably sources and merge is no sense option because Breil is a brand more famous than Binda, which is a corporation's name--Puccetto (talk) 13:13, 30 April 2014 (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.