Portage Entrepreneurial : Oaktree b ( talk ) 14:50, 9 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and France .  Shellwood ( talk ) 14:57, 9 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep any perceived lack of clarity in the article, such as the difference between portage entrepreneurial and portage salarial, should not be a reason for deletion.  Instead, it should be a reason to seek additional sources and further improve the article.  The notability of the concept is high, as it represents an alternative business model in the field of entrepreneurship, specifically for self-employed workers in France.  -- BoraVoro ( talk ) 06:13, 15 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep The article may be considered notable for Wikipedia because it discusses a specific legal status in French labour law. This concept has gained recognition in media and has been discussed by industry experts and the president of the National Union of Specialized Portage Companies. I think the article should be left for revision and addition -- MsWalders ( talk ) 12:43, 16 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 00:24, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  02:37, 24 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak delete the sources do not seem to be reliable for GNG, but it's a bit hard to tell.  Given the nature of the concept and the difficulty in establishing notability, I'm not convinced a merge to self-employment or something similar would be appropriate either.  Retracting my ! vote, though I'm not confident enough to make a rec as to the best non-delete outcome — siro χ o 05:24, 24 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , as weak sources in and of themselves shouldn't be the determining factor in whether an article should be deleted, as surely it just means better sources should be searched for.  DimensionalFusion ( talk ) 08:51, 24 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The problem for many topics, including this is verifiability and notability .  These are vital in making Wikipedia an encyclopedia .  Without reliable sources we risk including too much inaccurate information.  — siro χ o 02:56, 25 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] DimensionalFusion , we use reliable sources to establish notability which is typically the primary determining factor in whether or not articles are Kept, Delete, Merge or Redirected.  What do you suggest the determining factor(s) should be, if not notability?  L iz Read!  Talk!  01:49, 26 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm not suggesting changing the determining factors regarding notability, I simply think the article itself could be improved with more sources which would help it to establish the aforementioned notability - DimensionalFusion (talk) 08:15, 26 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Despite the small number of sources, the article is significant in terms of the criterion of state-building in civil law.  This policy direction was also supported by Emmanuel Macron.  That is, the interest of the highest branch of government is also present.  Leave for editing.  -- Wyndhan Han ( talk ) 11:34, 29 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I believe the preferred english language name for the subject should be "wage portage", in which case we are able to find some english language coverage of the topic, for example "The collaborative spirit at the service of an economic model" in Revue francaise des affaires sociales and "The Impact of New Forms of Self-Employment on Employment Law" in E-Journal of International and Comparative Labour Studies .  Although I can't definitively say that the available sources will allow the article to evolve beyond a dicdef, this is a keep but move from me, though I would not oppose a merge to a section in self-employment.  Alpha3031 ( t • c ) 07:42, 2 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete it is telling that no editor has added any RS to the article since the AfD began.  I think that is simply because none exists.  I have been unable to find any RS.  Our article has zero RS as well.  Our article uses Forbes Brandvoice which states - Forbes BrandVoices® provide business partners direct access to the Forbes audience by allowing them to publish their editorial content to the Forbes site.  , other non-rs like a company website Les Echos Solutions, and another private company Nexco.  I am not clear on how anybody determined that this meets our guidelines for inclusion.  Lightburst ( talk ) 14:06, 2 July 2023 (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.

Discussion outcome: keep