Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TomTom (2nd 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 Keep per WP:SNOW. Stifle (talk) 18:37, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] TomTom

TomTom (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

The first discussion of this article was early-closed by User:Solumeiras as a speedy keep. Per WP:DPR#NAC, I am annulling the non-admin closure and reopening the discussion. I am neutral on the matter. Stifle (talk) 13:55, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Clearly meets WP:CORP with coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources. Davewild (talk) 13:58, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Probably the best-known supplier of in-car satnav in Europe. "TomTom" is used in the UK as a generic term for car satnav, much as "hoover" is used for vacuum cleaner. Absolutely no reason to delete. Emeraude (talk) 14:06, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Needs some cleanup but the WP:RS issues in the first AfD have been fixed. The POV problems were overstated. TomTom satisfies WP:CORP. • Gene93k (talk) 14:09, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep -- Repeating what I wrote in the first AfD:

while this article may lack adequate references, I recommend withdrawing this AfD:

1. The article states that TomTom trades on the Euronext exchange. Normally companies that trade on a major exchange are considered inherently notable.
2. A Google News searches >1800 press mentions in the last 30 days. Searching the Google News archives turns up 12,000 more press mentions
3. Article histories never establish notability but I note that this article's been edited over 170 times by several dozen different editors

On reading the deletion review discussion, I believe the nominator misunderstands the notion of community consensus in pushing to delete the article in spite of demonstrated notability. If one thinks large companies should not be included in Wikipedia, then that idea is best pursued first at either Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) or Wikipedia talk:Notability (organizations and companies) -- not by using 2 AfDs and a DRV. --A. B. ^(talk) 14:35, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Undoubtedly meets WP:CORP.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 14:38, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Again. Sourced article that meets corp based on non-trivial reliable sources. spryde | talk 14:56, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy keep the only person who apparently wants to delete this has the idea that a company must be "iconic" for us to have an article on it, which has no basis in policy. --W.marsh 15:21, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy keep How ya like it now, Stifle? Mandsford (talk) 16:10, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
  • This is enough to WP:SNOW. Stifle (talk) 18:37, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Company meets WP:CORP with flying colors. Xoloz (talk) 17:18, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Whoever has the idea to delete this article on a key market player; and on what basis?!?Enquire (talk) 18:26, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

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.