Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ROSEN Group: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 08:09, 6 October 2017

ROSEN Group

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

Doesn't appear to meet WP:CORP. The references cited are predominantly primary sources, with the others being in specialist publications that aren't of use for conferring notability. My searches have not found anything better. SmartSE (talk) 19:08, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 20:30, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 20:30, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:05, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It seems as if this is just an odd campaign against paid editing. The statements on the sources have little to do with reality.

42 references are given. Independent newspapers are used like “Neue Osnabrücker Zeitung”, “Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung”, „Handelszeitung“. Special weeklys like „vdi Nachrichten“ or magazins like „bbr Leitungsbau, Brunnenbau, Geothermie“ are used also. The company has a very special business, that’s why such sources are helpful. Perception, size and position in their business area underline notability. Some references used are primary sources (website), right. It’s in line with Wikipedia:ORGIND (“Once notability is established, primary sources and self-published sources may be used to verify some of the article's content”). Atomiccocktail (talk) 08:08, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 8: / Line 8: @@
 :<small class="delsort-notice">Note:  This debate has been included in the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Switzerland|list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions]]. [[User:MassiveYR|<span style='color:black;text-shadow: 0.0em 0.0em 0.9em black'><big>'''M'''</big><small>'''''assiveYR'''''</small></span>]] [[User talk:MassiveYR|<span style='color:black;text-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.2em black'>♠</span>]] 20:30, 5 October 2017 (UTC)</small>
 :<small class="delsort-notice">Note:  This debate has been included in the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Business|list of Business-related deletion discussions]]. <span class="smallcaps" style="font-variant:small-caps;">[[User:Northamerica1000|North America]]<sup>[[User talk:Northamerica1000|<font size="-2">1000</font>]]</sup></span> 06:05, 6 October 2017 (UTC)</small>
+:It seems as if this is just an odd campaign against paid editing. The statements on the sources have little to do with reality.
+:42 references are given. Independent newspapers are used like “Neue Osnabrücker Zeitung”, “Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung”, „Handelszeitung“. Special weeklys like „vdi Nachrichten“ or magazins like „bbr Leitungsbau, Brunnenbau, Geothermie“ are used also. The company has a very special business, that’s why such sources are helpful. Perception, size and position in their business area underline notability. Some references used are primary sources (website), right. It’s in line with [[Wikipedia:ORGIND]] (“Once notability is established, primary sources and self-published sources may be used to verify some of the article's content”). [[User:Atomiccocktail|Atomiccocktail]] ([[User talk:Atomiccocktail|talk]]) 08:08, 6 October 2017 (UTC)