Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leuchtturm

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 draftify. Given that one of the "keep" !votes explicitly remarks on the weakness of the sourcing, draftifying seems to be the best solution until such time that sufficient sources have been found. Randykitty (talk) 15:14, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Leuchtturm

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

No doubt that the company exists and has a long history. However, the vast majority of sources are primary (ie the company's own website) with the exception of one editorial article in the Handelsblatt. Two further are casual mentions in listings it seems. This does not satisfy WP:GNG or WP:NCORP _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 07:32, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 07:32, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 07:32, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, while the nom is right that sourcing needs to be improved, this is one of Germany's main philately brands. While not as dominant as Michel catalog, it is long-standing. There must be reviews of their products and mentions of the company in the dozens of small discontinued philately journals that the German market once sustained. —Kusma (t·c) 09:50, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Kusma: I tend to agree, however the substantial primary sourcing remains a fundamental concern about the contents of the article. Product reviews will probably be difficult to distinguish from PR or advertising and mentions in other sources may be closely related to "business as usual". The article had been draftified and AfC recommended, however the article was moved back to article space in its current form. It is not suitable for main space as it stands. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 10:14, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify. I feel like the brand is sufficiently well-known to be included on enwiki. By the way, there are German and Russian Wikipedia articles on the subject and although every wiki has its own inclusion criteria, the Germans are usually quite deletion-happy. Pichpich (talk) 17:48, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:48, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Kusma. Mosaicberry (talk) 13:34, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify The article in question reads a little too much like an advertisement and doesn't capture it's supposed prominence in philately; assuming it exists the article should be made to reflect this history before returning to article space. Userqio (talk) 07:04, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:57, 14 April 2019 (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.