Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Evolis

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. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:42, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Evolis

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

I still confirm my PROD here as it's clear this is still advertising, regardless of anything or anyone else, and it therefore violates policy WP:NOT. SwisterTwister talk 22:40, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as AfC reviewer. If there's something in the article that's advertising, it's certainly not clear. It's mostly matter-of-fact statements about acquisitions. TimothyJosephWood 00:50, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:54, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article looks neutral and there are sources in notables french newspapers, other than the ones already in the article : [1] in Les Échos, [2], [3] in Le Figaro, [4] in Ouest France. Regards, Comte0 (talk) 16:13, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - not seeing advertising here, in fact I'd consider it better than average for a corporation article. Notable references per Comte0. Meets GNG. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:07, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - For the sake of policy, no one has even acknowledged how this is still violating WP:NOT, which beats out any guideline such as WP:BASIC, WP:GNG or WP:CORP, and policy is something we use every day; comments such as "I'm not seeing the advertising here" or "it's better than those other advert articles" is not what establishes our policy methods. Also, as for the article itself, it still shows how this is still only existing for the company's own advertising gains. The first link offered by the comment above is literally a "The company's story", so that beats the chances of it being independent. The LeFigaros is in fact apparently a republished PR, the Ouest apparently seems to be between a listing profile and PR. If this is literally the best we can offer here, we're damning ourselves as an encyclopedia. SwisterTwister talk 03:46, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Not sure where the advertising is and it clearly passes WP:GNG, As per WP:NOT, any content that a user feels is promotional can be corrected through regular editing and WP:NOT stipulates following Wikipedia:Deletion policy which also states regular editing of a notable topic should be done instead of deletion. --Oakshade (talk) 04:45, 13 December 2016 (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.