Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sobotec

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. Proto::► 14:27, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sobotec

Sobotec (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Yet another non-notable company created by a spa. Google finds their site and a few online directories, but not much else. yandman 14:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - Article makes assertion of notability by claiming, "they have been able to gain international leadership status". Got a good number of google hits, seems valid. Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Weak Delete - I will assume that jzg looked into it a little deeper than I did. Addmitedly it was a quick surface scan. IF any of the facts can be cited, I will be for a keep but JzG's comments were enough to swing me to a weak delete. Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 16:19, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete scores poorly on the Google test, mostly directories, nothing on google news, nothing on Factiva, not publicly quoted, no details of revenues etc., claim of "leadership" is generic for all marketing claims and is unsubstantiated, article is unsourced, creator's sole contributions are this article and linking it to Alcan. All of which adds up to a failure to meet WP:CORP at best, spam at worst. Guy (Help!) 14:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - The company has been in a few newspaper articles which you can find on Sobotec Newspaper Articles. Dragan.mandic 18:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I've changed the article to fit Wikipedia standards. Hopefully it was good enough to keep. Dragan.mandic 21:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC) — Dragan.mandic (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Delete, seems to have an interesting product, but doesn't meet the independently-talked-about qualifier in WP:CORP. -- Steve Hart 06:52, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 20:30, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• I'm not comfortable deleting just yet, mostly per http://www.sobotec.com/Newspaper.htm but I'm not understanding where these articles are from exactly. But they would seem to go towards notability. I think this deserves a bit more consideration. --W.marsh 20:30, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep - I looked over the press clippings. It would seem that many of them are from a trade magazine. I'm not at all familiar with industrial building materials, so I have no idea whether this site and any associated trade magazines are an important or reliable source for the industry. If so, then these should satisfy them being featured. If not, then my opinion would swing towards a delete. -- Whpq 22:19, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete Fails WP:CORP, and may be corporate spam. The so-called "newspaper clippings" are not that at all (compare zero hits from JzG's Factiva search). Low number of google hits. Bwithh 02:13, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I added some references. Articles in trade magazines are sufficient to meet the "multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the subject itself" criterion. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 07:47, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the "sources are independent of the subject itself" criterion. I've always found that trade magazines use press releases (and maybe a quick phone call to the company) as their only sources. However, if the standard procedure is to accept these, so be it. yandman 08:05, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Articles in trade magazines are not sufficient in themselves. Broadly accepting such sources would lead to an avalanche of corporate spam on Wikipedia. Bwithh 16:11, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Incorrect. There is nothing in policy that excludes material in trade magazines and local newspapers. Many stories in all types of media begin with a company press release, but a journalist builds upon that to create an original article. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 16:45, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Nothing notable here. None of the references, even the new ones, have this company as the subject of the article. Akihabara 14:10, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Here are two articles from Hamilton Spectator about Sobotec Ltd. that should end this discussion. Sobotec Builds on Expertise - Hamilton Spectator Article, and Mac Athletes Score Big - Hamilton Spectator Article. The second article does not mention Sobotec, but the panels on the building on the picture are manufactured and installed by Sobotec Ltd. Dragan.mandic 16:07, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

You can't !vote more than once. Striking out your second Keep Bwithh 16:11, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

If it doesn't mention Sobotec, it's of no interest. The second one is more interesting, but a small local-interest article in a town newspaper isn't "multiple non-trivial published works" (in my opinion, of course). yandman 16:14, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

A puff piece in a local newspaper doesnt do it for me either Bwithh 16:15, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I appeared more than once in my childhood town's local newspaper (with Photograph!!!), it doesn't make me notable enough to be here...yet. yandman 16:21, 12 December 2006 (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.