Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MOPAK

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 no consensus. I might have closed this as delete, but giving credence to Nosebagbear's change of !vote, am closing as no consensus. Nosebagbear may move this to draft per their suggestion. Lourdes 03:36, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MOPAK (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Not notable. Ruyaba (talk) 05:24, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 14:17, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 14:17, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Draftify - inability to find suitable sources, let alone to pass WP:NCORP. Notwithstanding someone who might manage a better job than I at searching the turkish sources. As a side note, I suspect the article could probably be considered to fail G11 (advertising). Nosebagbear (talk) 22:32, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to draftify per WP:ATD Nosebagbear (talk) 23:01, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: does not meet WP:NCORP. No attempt has been made to provide at least one third-party source. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:13, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Poorly written under-referenced article (candidate for "draftification"), but the business is notable. 200,000 tonnes per year of pulp and "the biggest pulp paper and cardboard manufacturing company in Turkey as well as in the Balkans and Middle East" is a material business. Here is a write up in Turkish Fortune Mopak Britishfinance (talk) 20:39, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Added two more refs. Their MOPAK SEKA deal does turn up a few turkish articles so I translated one of them. I think this will pass WP:GNG but all references are in Turkish. Britishfinance (talk) 21:08, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - @Britishfinance: - the Turkish fortune article is good, however the Hürriyet article appears to be an interview, without independent commentary - thus it doesn't help give any notability. Given the strictness, of WP:NCORP, it still doesn't meet notability. I'd be happy enough to !vote draftification (or even userfy) if you'd prefer me to do that? Nosebagbear (talk) 22:46, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. @Nosebagbear: I have struggling with this to find more good RS on notability. Not sure if the issue is that they just don't exist (I would still be surprised given the scale of their plants), or whether I just can't see them via Turkish-translated websites (i.e. I am trying to screen them using English terms). Not sure I can get anything more. Would love if anybody with skills in this area could definitively say whether all I have is all there is; perhaps draftify is an option. Am open-minded eitherway. thanks Britishfinance (talk) 22:58, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Well I've changed to draftify for the moment. Another look would be great - I think there is a list of admins who speak certain languages, but I can't remember where it is. Perhaps a message at the turkish project? We really just need a few key words translated to help the hunt - a machine translate is sufficient for checking the actual sources. Nosebagbear (talk) 23:01, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Appreciate the gesture for my efforts!. Britishfinance (talk) 01:43, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails WP:CORP. Three sources, all are non-independent. The company is very actively promoting itself. I think there is no chance of it meeting WP:CORP. Do not draftify, but delete with prejudice. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:03, 22 February 2019 (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.