Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hidromek

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. Sandstein 09:56, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hidromek

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

Recreated without reliable sources on 5 July 2016. Previously deleted 3 times for failure to meet notability criteria 2008, 2010, 2014. Basic WP:BEFORE reveals little in the way of in-depth, reliable 3rd party sources. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:56, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 23:45, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 23:45, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I found [1] in Takvim and [2] in Cumhuriyet. Google Translate says they're about the company, but... I don't like trusting Google Translate. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:46, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The article as it currently stands does not establish notability, but the corresponding article on Turkish Wikipedia, with citations to what look like articles substantially about the subject from both Hürriyet and Milliyet, looks as if it might well meet our notability standards - provided the cited articles don't turn out to be nothing more than recycled press releases (which I don't feel able to judge either way when, as with Turkish, I don't know the language). And while, beyond this, Google searches provide a wide enough range of results for notability to look likely, the small minority of English-language results among them unfortunately do look like press releases. This is something for which we need a relatively experienced Turkish-speaking editor, as it looks as if any reliable sources will be very largely in Turkish. PWilkinson (talk) 10:52, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even the Turkish article arguably doesn't meet WP:SIGCOV. One of the links is misrepresented as being from the New York Times but the vast majority of the references come from a single source. Even if the Turkish article did have significant coverage, there still remains the WP:BURDEN that this article, on the English Wikipedia, must meet our standards. Since this article had repeated failed to do so, I am recommending a delete with the caveat that it could be recreated IF the appropriate references are found and included. Mkdw ^talk 17:52, 12 July 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.