User:KDS4444/AfD:TTTech

Organization fails notability criteria based on type of citations provided in article as well as an independent search of news, books, and other independent media. Aside from the fact that the article appears to essentially be a promotional vehicle for the company (WP:ADVERT), the following reference items fail to establish notability for the following reasons:

Citations: 1.) This is a link to the company's own web site (not independent— fails WP:IS). 2.) Also a link to the company's own web site (again, fails WP:IS). 3.) "Server not found/ dead link" error, no way to verify what type of source this was, text provided in citation gives no indication that the source is independent, reliable, or secondary 4.) This is a paper co-authored by a co-founder of the organization (fails WP:IS). 5.) Another paper presentation with the same problem (fails WP:IS). 6.) This is another link to the company's web site (fails WP:IS). 7.) This is a link to the web site of a consortium of which the company is a member (fails WP:CORPDEPTH) 8.) This is a link to another organization of which the company is only mentioned as an industrial partner (fails WP:CORPDEPTH). 9.) This is a link to another organization's web site that credits the article's subject with having achieved a certain degree of wind-powered operation. This is a routine (if interesting) achievement, comparable to a press release, which apparently applies to about a hundred organizations within the company's nation (Austria)— it is not a competitive award, and cannot be used to establish notability (fails WP:CORPDEPTH). 10.) This is another link to the company's own web site (fails WP:IS). 11.) This specifically IS a press release ("Presseaussendung" — fails WP:IS). 12.) This is a record of a statement made by an employee of the company about a type of airplane (the Airbus A380) (fails WP:CORPDEPTH as a quotation from an organization's personnel as a story source). 13.) This is a link to a news article about certification for use of a technology created by the company by two government authorities. The company itself is not mentioned anywhere in the article— this citation could be used for an article about the technology, but does not establish notability for the company itself (fails notability by way of WP:PRODUCT).

The majority of the article's content appears to have been composed by a single user, Austria2010, who has never written text for anything other than this article and two corresponding articles on the company's technology— this raises concerns as to who this editor is and whether or not he/ she is in fact independent of the article's subject (concern: WP:COMPANY).

While it appears that some of the technology developed by the company is notable, there is no evidence that the company has any notability independent of this technology (reiterate concern: WP:PRODUCT).

Given the above, and given that I have not been able to find any suitable independent, reliable sources in other contexts for this company that are anything other than routine, passing, or trivial, I propose that it be deleted.