Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Traka

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 delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:35, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Traka

[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)

I'm not sure it would clearly meet G11, so I am nominating it for a consensus decision to delete, keep or deal with in any other apropriate way. The corporate parent seems clearly notable. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:55, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (Original author) I have nothing to add to this discussion. Act as you think fit. Jeremy Malies — Preceding unsigned comment added by JeremyMalies (talk • contribs) 21:06, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Delete: From what I can see this article seems to have mass WP:PAID problems, users are making few edits and editing a limited set of articles when invloved in this one. RhinosF1^(chat)_{(status)(contribs)} 21:31, 30 January 2019 (UTC) -Given it's recent change, I would support keeping it but it still needs work. RhinosF1^(chat)_{(status)(contribs)} 22:06, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:ORGCRIT. I found mentions of the company, usually just in security systems websites. No reliable, secondary sources. Aurornisxui (talk) 21:34, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This is my first time editing on Wikipedia, as I was asked to align with Traka company updates. I have taken on board all the comments and reverted back to the original version on advice from Wikipedia Live Chat to avoid the page being deleted. I will seek to understand more the issues so I can update more compliantly. Always learning!LydiaFionaLewis (talk) 22:06, 30 January 2019 (UTC) LydiaFionaLewis[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:40, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:40, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To allow for further discussion on the pre-PAIDCOI version
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 23:13, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Hi all, I do want to make amends in line with the conversations I have had with the Wikipedia Live Chat to improve the page - but I am conscious of doing so and adding any confusion, whilst this discussion is ongoing. Please could someone kindly advise when a resolution will occur? Also (apologies) what does 'pre-PAIDCOI' refer? Thank you in advance LydiaFionaLewis —Preceding undated comment added 21:57, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: does not meet WP:NCORP. Sourcing offered above is in passing and / ot WP:SPIP, insufficient for establishing notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:17, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per user:K.e.coffman and User:Aurornisxui. There is a difference in sources for content and those supporting notability. Some sources on the article don't even have passing mention. The article Assa Abloy is the parent of "Traka". In the first reference there are five divisions, EMEA, Americas, Asia Pacific, Global Technologies and Entrance Systems. Traka is not listed so is a sub-division actually of EMEA. The first reference mentions Ingersoll-Rand twice, with nothing about Trake or a $14.89bn acquisition price, so does not appear to even be a source for the article. The second reference "does" support the Ministry of Justice, with mention of the FBI (not in the paragraph), but does not mention the Metropolitan Police Service’s Royalty Protection Squad. The third reference does mention Traka in an article dated 10 Dec 2011 and pre-acquisition. The "Awards" reference does not contain Traska at all. What about John Kent? He was the founder and still company manager of Trasha. Even with that added I do not see a small company (a sub-division) as deserving a stand-alone article at the expense of the start-class parent company. I might consider merge but that has become an issue with some AFD's. Note to new editors: Thanks for contributing but why would putting divisions and subdivision under a parent article and building it up to C-class or better not be a better plan than two lessor classed articles? The notability is certainly with the parent company. Just a thought because it is not supposed to be about article creation numbers over quality. Articles can always be split. Otr500 (talk) 17:32, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. We may welcome, appreciate, and admire the efforts of newbies in creating new articles but this does not mean that the standards of Wikipedia must be lowered to accomodate personal gratification. Wikipedia is, first and foremost, an encyclopaedia and not a course in writing. Anyone who wants to contribute here can easily learn how to do it properly, even when it comes to creating new articles. This is why WP:AFC is in place. -The Gnome (talk) 05:42, 13 February 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.