Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oberthur Technologies

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. MBisanz ^talk 17:23, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oberthur Technologies

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

Seemingly obvious case of a non-notable and especially currently unacceptable article with my searches finding links at Books, News, browser and Highbeam but I'm still not sure if this can be improved and accepted. This simply has not changed since starting in March 2010 and I'm pinging the only seemingly still interested users Orangemike and HollywoodCowboy. SwisterTwister talk 07:24, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:27, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:27, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:27, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:42, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. At 882 million euros, probably large enough to be notable. With a longstanding apparently unchallenged article in both theFrench and German Wikipedia , certainly notable. Though our rules are different, I have very rarely seen a European company in the Fr WP that I would be comfortable deleting here, and I have never seen one in the deWP, which in all relevant aspects has a stricter notability standard than we do. DGG ( talk ) 20:12, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I usually don't disagree with SwisterTwister, but my searches turned up quite a bit on this company. Granted, some of it is quite recent (subsequent to the nom - such as this), but there appear to be enough in-depth coverage to meet both WP:GNG and WP:NCORP, such as this, this, this and this. In addition, there are literally of hundreds of mentions, which while brief, paint a picture of a major player in the technology the company provides. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:25, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Can easily be sourced to WP:NCORP with a few of the 9670 news hits. -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 13:43, 20 October 2015 (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.