Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Syensqo
Appearance
- 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. asilvering (talk) 02:00, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Syensqo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
not meet GNG RodrigoIPacce (talk) 10:56, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. RodrigoIPacce (talk) 10:56, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:05, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
- Delete : No reliable source.--Gabriel (……?) 12:52, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
Redirect to Solvay S.A.#History.While organizationally the company was spun off, our article hardly contains information beyond that of Solvay S.A. Making it an unjustified SPINOFF. This solution should receive priority by ATD, CHEAP, and PRESERVE. gidonb (talk) 01:00, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
- Keep per content improvements made. NCORP was not a concern. gidonb (talk) 19:48, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
- Keep - It could do with more content and more references, but it is already a notable company within its industry and it should be updated, rather than deleted or redirected to Solvay S.A. (since it is effectively a new company). I found also quite a wide media coverage: Links [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23]. --E.D.G. (talk) 03:50, 23 September 2024 (UTC)— E.D.G. (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- The problem here is NOT notability (the popular goto response to many procedures at WP) but that of information governance. Once there is sufficient content for a new article your points and sources by NEXIST would absolutely fly. gidonb (talk) 00:36, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:43, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
Keep- In order to address the points raised during the discussion, I added new content and new third-party sources to improve the article. --E.D.G. (talk) 11:42, 2 October 2024 (UTC)- You cannot !vote twice. Striking your duplicate vote. LibStar (talk) 10:09, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
- Hello LibStar, I am sorry, I didn't know that. I just wanted to mention the changes applied to the page and I thought the Relisting process would somehow open for a completely new discussion. Thanks for letting me know. E.D.G. (talk) 13:32, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
- You cannot !vote twice. Striking your duplicate vote. LibStar (talk) 10:09, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 19:55, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. With added sources it clearly passes WP:NCORP. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:24, 8 October 2024 (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.