Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Melles Griot

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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, as no evidence of notability has emerged. Merger with Barloworld is an uncertain option as Melles Griot was sold and the current relationship with Barloworld is unclear.--Kubigula (talk) 22:04, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Melles Griot

Melles Griot (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Notability not established due to lack of independent coverage (WP:CORP). PROD contested with comment: "Removed deletion proposal. Company is (was) noteworthy." That's not much of an argument. I would also be fine with a merger to their former parent company, Barloworld Scientific, just that I do not see anything worth merging. -- Sent here as part of the Notability wikiproject. --B. Wolterding 16:56, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete. No, company is not (was not) noteworthy. Might be worth a line in the parent company but no need to merge. Accounting4Taste 18:55, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions. -- Gavin Collins 13:14, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable company. Keb25 13:35, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Prominent photonics/optical company. A2Kafir 20:59, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletions. —Fg2 09:19, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak keep' if material can be found. I think they're notable having seen their catalogs in the past and knowing the use of their products, but that needs to be shown. Otherwise, merge is probably the best solution. DGG (talk) 01:37, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Well, I think we can take for granted that the company exists, has issued catalogs, and that their products are used (otherwise their existence would be rather temporary I think). But that is far from notability. --B. Wolterding 16:15, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete No evidence of notability. --Gavin Collins 16:08, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak keep and rewrite. It is a notable firm, but it is a horrible article. Any company if you dig enough into the trade literature can be set to demonstrate notability, and prove it... • Lawrence Cohen 18:35, 14 September 2007 (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.