Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gigaset Communications

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 no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 01:26, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Gigaset Communications

Gigaset Communications (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Page probably created for advertising. Pages that link to it contain either irrelevant content or refer to Gigaset, a cordless telephone for which a redirect was created (by the author of this page, see here). Contains no reliable sources (all of them are the own corporation's page and/or blogs). Created by Cenora (talk · contribs), with a long history of deleted pages. Most of the interwikis added are false or were deleted when created, such as in pt.wiki (my home wiki), in which it was created by an ip who insisted on removind the speedy deletion tag on an automatically translated article, with copy & paste of most of the original page. Fails WP:ORG Daimore ^msg 05:05, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Page created for information on company products, most information on the products are indeed found in Gigaset website, but that doesn't mean the source is not reliable. Company was established recently, so not enough time to be on major new sources. I don't know what interwikis are. I tried to make the translation to portuguese, but wikipedia asked for another account (doesn't make sense), and not enough time to translate everything. I don't insist on removing anything. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.102.1.220 (talk) 10:11, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

• Delete per WikiNot:Advertising and WP:N. The previous IP contributor to this discussion mentions "Company was established recently, so not enough time to be on major new sources." which is exactly the point of WP:V and WP:N. Usrnme h8er (talk) 13:28, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
• Keep this is a pretty simply keep in my opinion. If the nominator had taken the time to simply go to the company's website, it would become clear that this is a multinational subsidiary of Siemens, one of the largest electronics conglomerates in the world. This specific business and its products are covered in a variety of publications in English as well as a wide variety of other languages [1],[2] and therefore passes WP:CORP. As far as the other indictment, interestingly, the article is not even particularly salesy in tone. The article is unreferenced (not counting the links to the company's website) which needs to be fixed. However if the issue with an article is "advertising" as the nominator suggests the correct course of action per WP:CORP#Special note: advertising and promotion is as follows:
  • Clean up per Wikipedia:neutral point of view
  • Delete remaining advertising content from the article
  • Delete the article

I think it is the nominator's responsibility to follow this course before nominating for deletion. Also, if this user is having trouble with articles being deleted, I would suggest someone provide some guidance as to what the article could look like once revised |► ϋrbanяenewaℓ • TALK ◄| 15:29, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

• Keep: Article needs reliable sources, but it meets WP:ORG: listed in Business Week. --Jmundo (talk) 16:07, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
• Comment - so as not to just talk, I went to the article, included a few references about the recent sale of the company from the New York Times, stripped out most of the weblinks that the author had included, removed all of the excessive linkage to the company's sublogos and tried to clean up the more problematic text. I think the article could still use more work from someone who is more familiar with this space. |► ϋrbanяenewaℓ • TALK ◄| 16:27, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

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.