This article is within the scope of WikiProject Switzerland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Switzerland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SwitzerlandWikipedia:WikiProject SwitzerlandTemplate:WikiProject SwitzerlandSwitzerland articles
This page sounds like it was written by a four-year-old who loves coffee. The tone is VERY informal.
The author has not contributed anything since May 2008 so I doubt he is coming back to fix it. Everything he wrote was about coffee machines and in this style. I am going to radically stub the article. If anybody thinks deletion is more appropriate then please go ahead. --DanielRigal (talk) 10:54, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I just read it again and lost the will to live. With no references at all it is hard to source even a decent stub. I think we should have an AfD and see whether the subject is worth salvaging before doing any work on it. --DanielRigal (talk) 10:57, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I ended up here from the Starbucks page. It looks like some improvements were made on this page after the above comments were made, but it still needs some work. I tried to do a little quick research, and really it looks like the Starbucks connection is the only thing that makes them notable. However, I could add a little about the company history and locations, and improve the grammar somewhat. That will be my next project. --Susan118 (talk) 18:40, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just looked into the edits by the author of this article, it seems he/she created the account to promote this company. All contributions other than one relate to Thermoplan. Makes me wonder how this survived the deletion review. I'm having trouble finding much on this company other than its connection to Starbucks, which is well-documented in that article (thanks to the author of this one).--Susan118 (talk) 04:48, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion is decided on whether the subject should have an article. It is not based on the quality of the article itself. Please do not interpret the keep decision as an endorsement of the article as it is. Your concerns are valid. Feel free to make whatever improvements you think fit. If that involves junking much of the current content then this is fine. In fact, I think would be a good idea to remove most of the current poor content before building it up again with a smaller amount of better content. --DanielRigal (talk) 12:55, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
