Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rosgeologiya (3rd nomination)

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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:11, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rosgeologiya

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

Repeat AfD, after some months of no improvement; reason from last time stands; I proposed deletion of this back in March, and the prod was removed with the article is virtually unsourced; but the entity is most certainly notable. I do understand the logic, but sadly, it was not improved. It has a single source, and I am unable to find others - of course, it is possible/likely that there are sources in another language, and per Wikipedia:Systemic bias, it would be great if others could add such. However, as it stands, I do not feel we can accurately present information on the company, without references to show notability, per WP:GNG, WP:V, WP:ONESOURCE. I also note that it is a holding company, and according to the only source we have, it is intended to incorporate others in the future - so there is an element of WP:CRYSTAL here, too. NOTE: This is a relisting, the same as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rosgeologiya. That was closed 'No consensus', but should almost certainly have been closed 'delete' and the closing admin agrees here, but we felt relisting made sense due to age of that, and the changes in AFD rules. Chzz ► 03:36, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:20, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:20, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No news about this proposed company since early 2010. --DonaldDuck (talk) 06:12, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 10:44, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, weakly. This is a holding company; anything with a significant impact on history, culture, or technology would be credited to its individual holdings, rather than this business. And the sources, as noted above, do not seem to be there. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:49, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The company doesn't exist yet and who knows if it ever will. --Badvibes101 (talk) 03:16, 23 February 2011 (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.