Talk:KWH Group

Edit this way down
This topic does not deserve more than a short paragraph at the most. Even then, notability is questionable, IMO. NuclearWinner 23:15, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Opinion noted, but I disagree. I found no strong support in the notability guidelines for your view. However, I do agree that the article should be edited down, but it is (as most stuff on Wikipedia) a "work in progress". Finally, you should have tagged it using the PROJECT-NAME tag, instead of the generic notability tag. I do intend to re-work (and complete) the article soon, so please feel free to check back later for a revised version. -- Grimne 21:12, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Notability of a company
According to [], "A company...is notable if it has been the subject of coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject. The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. Once notability is established, primary sources may be used to add content. Ultimately, and most importantly, all content must be attributable..." So we need to see some reliable, independent, substantial coverage of this company. NuclearWinner 21:40, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I've taken a look and have not found any independent, substantial coverage of this company. I've found corporate websites and press releases, plus 1 trade article based on a press release.  If you know of some independent, substantial coverage of this company, please do substantiate it, otherwise I feel this article must be recommended for deletion. NuclearWinner 21:44, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * As I mentioned, it is a work in progress, and I do not think there will be any issue in meeting the notability criteria. Hopefully you have not been relying only on Google in your research, because contrary to popular belief, it does not always tell you what is and is not available in the public domain (and certainly not when it comes to other languages than English). As mentioned before, please feel free to check back later for an improved and substantiated article, and hold your horses for a bit on the recommendation for deletion. (Take time for all things: great haste makes great waste -- Benjamin Franklin) -- Grimne 11:21, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Written like an ad & missing refs
There has been warnings on this article since January 2012 added by Epeefleche. Since the user is not active on Wikipedia anymore, I cannot ask if the changes made on the article would be enough for removing the tags. At the time there were 14 refs, while the number is now 27. Is it enough? I think the article has been edited way down too. So I'm pinging the previous talk page participants to get your opinions. Can the tags be removed already and if not, what should be changed NuclearWinner & Grimne? Ping also to Doprendek who edited the article in 2017. Jjanhone (talk) 17:55, 17 May 2022 (UTC)


 * The current version of the article focuses on the history and development of the company, so the "written like an ad" warning could be justified. The number of references can certainly continue to improve, however, with the current 27 references I believe this specific warning is now also obsolete. Grimne (talk) 20:10, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you Grimne! However I'm not sure if I understood correctly your comment. Is there a word missing from it? So I'm not sure if you said that both of the tags could be removed or only the one with refs. As a paid editor I feel uncomfortable of removing the warning(s) myself, so could you do it? Jjanhone (talk) 10:04, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Hello Grimne! Could you clarify your opinion please? Jjanhone (talk) 13:51, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Hello, indeed, I had left out a word - I intended to say "...so removing the "written like an ad" warning could be justified...". I will do it, thanks Grimne (talk) 20:24, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks!Jjanhone (talk) 06:29, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Vanity page
All the noted references are first party sourced, i.e. press releases, company promotional materials, business license records, etc. These are not independent and can't be cpnsidered reliable or disinteresyed. It really doesn't matter how many variants of self-praising brochures a company has published. None of these establish notability or any other encyclopedic value. Recommend editing way down (like 97%) or preferably deleting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NuclearWinner (talk • contribs) 22:30, 10 June 2024 (UTC)