Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vollrath

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. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:47, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vollrath[edit]

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

Noting in the article indicates why the company is notable. Wkharrisjr (talk) 12:51, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article itself noted Vollrath is global; this indicates the company is notable-the article should be kept-thank you-RFD (talk) 23:09, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:56, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do not interpret WP:Company to mean that international companies are automatically considered notable. I cannot find any significant independent sources referring to this company, and thus should be deleted.Wkharrisjr (talk) 05:44, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep One of the largest employers in Sheboygan County, and on par with Kohler Company, which is nowhere near deletion, and mainly an institutional cookware company rather than a consumer brand like T-Fal. The references are there and a true reason for deletion has not been listed within the rationale. Nate • (chatter) 01:36, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 12:56, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for reasons that I stated on February 4. I neeed to make this clearer. Thank you-RFD (talk) 18:49, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article desperately needs a rewrite and a trimming down, as well as the addition of better sources. But the company is clearly notable as shown by the large amount of significant coverage found at Google News Archive. There are many articles from the Milwaukee Sentinel and quite a few from the New York Times. --MelanieN (talk) 01:19, 26 February 2011 (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.