Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ritmeyer

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. If the conclusion of a DRV is "list at AfD", it is quite reasonable for the AfD closer to do that as a procedural action without expressing an opinion. JohnCD (talk) 14:46, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ritmeyer[edit]

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

Was deleted A7 and then listed at DRV [1]. The DRV closed as list at AFD so here we are. As the DRV closer my nomination is an administrative action to enforce the close so I am neutral. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:30, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:29, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:29, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:29, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If the article can be verified as correct in substance, the topic is notable. However, at the DRV many people (including myself) were unsuccessful in finding any information other than that Ritmeyer baby grand pianos exist (e.g. [2]). So, although it is possible that the further claims in the article are valid, they certainly require justification. Mere existence is a wholly inadequate basis for an article so the present version should be deleted. If anyone comes up with references, or offers to develop a referenced article, I'll rethink. Thincat (talk) 23:43, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- No sources upon which to base an article. Frankly, the speedy deletion should have stood and this should never have been relisted. Reyk _YO! 00:37, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I could only find one ebay listing from this year, and one block advert from 1957 (both linked to in the DRV). There will be more sources available offline, but we do not have enough sources (yet) to write even a stub which includes assertions of notability that are verifiable. If that cant be fixed during this Afd, it is indistinguishable from a hoax, but I would be happy to see it userified or moved into the new draft namespace, in the hope someone with specialised resources or knowledge can rescue it or challenge the notability of it. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 02:08, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Speedy keep NPASR Starting an AfD without a deletion argument is not a neutral action. A company that has been out of business for forty years is not a high-risk topic that might justify administrative intervention to create an AfD. There are only two possibilities, either someone is willing to make an AfD nomination, or no one is willing to make an AfD nomination, and in neither of these two cases is administrative intervention needed. Unscintillating (talk) 02:18, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Technically an AfD may continue regardless of the position of the nominator if one or more editors have !voted delete. This is why a withdrawn nomination is only speedily keep if no other delete !votes have been brought forth. At the time of your speedy keep argument there have already been delete rationales. This is kind of half a dozen of one and 6 of the other. Mkdw ^talk 09:46, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can change my !vote to a Procedural closure NPASR if you want. Unscintillating (talk) 04:25, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete, I haven't been able to find anything substantial on this manufacturer. Weak because there may be sources in German that I can't locate. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:10, 28 January 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Regardless of the supposed notability of the subject, there has been time enough to establish some proper sources. If none can be found, we have no choice but to delete. We can't encourage the existence of completely unverified articles. --gilgongo (talk) 13:53, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CORP. DRVing this was just plain silly, there are NO sources, reliable or otherwise. The only supposed evidence that such a company ever even existed is a single picture on eBay, which isn't a reliable source--for example, how can we be sure Ritmeyer is even the company name and not the model, or the family that owned it, or that it wasn't stencilled there a month ago or even photoshopped on? The primary claim in the article, that Ritmeyer pianos are highly sought-after and valuable to collectors, strongly appears to be false, and NOTHING about this subject, including existence, is verifiable by any reliable sources. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:18, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No credible assertion of notability. Mkdw ^talk 09:19, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I cheated and asked a music librarian take a shot at this. They came up with nothing. So delete it is. Hobit (talk) 18:30, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
delete fails CORP -- Y not? 06:02, 31 January 2014 (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.