Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arco (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 delete. KTC (talk) 00:50, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Arco (company)

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

DePRODed by creator without addressing the issue. Cpncern was: Being selected to supply a possibly important customer is not an indication of significance or importance.. When I originally patrolled this new article, if it hadn't been for the claim in the single reference, I would have tagged it for CSD A7. No other significant sources found. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:05, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete: On the one hand this appears to be a firm with 1500 employees in business for almost 100 years, and some local importance [1]. On the other hand, aside from that Guardian passing mention, plus a mention that the firm have been reducing their carbon footprint, and some PR-type articles in "Food Trade Review" about branch openings, I am not finding anything about the firm to meet
reliable sources are identified though. AllyD (talk) 08:45, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment: This looks as if it might be a reliable source from 1955 if anyone can get hold of the original (Rubber Journal, volume 129). As the company does seem to have been in existence for nearly a century, I would be surprised if a really thorough search could not come up with more sources - though, given the company's original name, some of the coverage from the 1970s and 1980s might be distinctly negative. PWilkinson (talk) 10:30, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. So what? What have they done? What makes them more notable than the supplier of funny-shaped hats for the 2008 Olympics? Lack of sources. Gm545 (talk) 16:18, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I've looked over the sources cited by others above, as well as the one in the article currently, plus I did some searching of my own and came up empty. All total I'm just not seeing an significant coverage that would meet
WP:CORPDEPTH.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:11, 2 January 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.