Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BOMAG

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. (non-admin closure) -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 10:14, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BOMAG[edit]

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

The age makes me think it would've at least gotten better coverage than the best I found here, here and here (there are a few sources at the German Wiki as well) but I'm not seeing much to suggest convincingly better and the current article is speedy & PROD material (the article has existed with almost no change since December 2010 and the author may spell as "PR expert" (prexpert)). SwisterTwister talk 06:29, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:31, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:31, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:31, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, though if I got out of bed the other side today, it could easily be 'weak delete'. The current article is indeed very 'adverty' but could be sourced using the very long and comprehensive article in Allgemeine Bauzeitung (already identified above). There is also a large amount of coverage in other landscape and construction news sources, for example many articles in Fachzeitschrift für den Garten und Landschaftsbau. It's giant products are mentioned in a Huffington Post book review too. Considering the company's age there may be pre-internet coverage. If this was a British or American company I may well have gone 'weak delete' based on the increased ease of finding sources in the English language. Though there's scant evidence at the moment of general widely-read media coverage, I think there's enough to make a short, neutral article about the company. Sionk (talk) 07:44, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 02:41, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 11:39, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In general, I accept the notability of substantial long-established German companies listed in the deWP. (As for promotionalism,. the deWP used to be exemplary, but currently does not have our restrictions on paid editing). The slight promotionalism in the enWP article can be (and has been) removed, and the deWP article has additional acceptable material and substantial referencing. DGG ( talk ) 23:12, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - Sionk's analysis is spot on. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:57, 24 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.