Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Basler Electric


 * 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. Edison's arguments are convincing; consensus is clear for keep. (non-admin closure)   ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪    ―Œ  ♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣  11:16, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Basler Electric

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Speedy declined. No assertion of notability. Article has been tagged for this since Dec 08. Created by User:Basler Electric. Wtshymanski (talk) 15:30, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak KeepThey appear to be a major manufacturer of electronic protective relays and specialty transformers used in the electric utility field. I see lots of coverage of their products in textbooks about protective relaying,, ,  but fewer sections about the company. Some coverage of the company is at  pages 184-185  and may be at some of the annoying snippet views. Google news archive  has some coverage of the company , , , ,  and their  products , . Edison (talk) 21:16, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment by nominator I've been using and specifying Basler products for years - but I don't see enough independent coverage of the company to make it notable as described in in Notability (organizations and companies). The guideline says the company must have attracted notice, must have had some kind of impact (other than the cherished "improving stockholder value". --Wtshymanski (talk) 13:36, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * How about refs 5-9 above which cover the company, rather than just using their product to illustrate a book? Google scholar shows a great many research publications by the staff at Basler. Does that help? Edison (talk) 19:37, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Lots of companies publish brochures about their own products. Self-published sources aren't WP "reliable". Just because a company prints a lot of paper doesn't make it notable. Lack of high-speed access is really crimping my ability to check out your sources. The ones I did look at seemed just to mention the company in passing; there's no analysis of the relative importance of this company in its sector.  --Wtshymanski (talk) 13:25, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I thought that Google scholar was generally publications other than promotional brochures and instruction manuals. Edison (talk) 18:52, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Google Scholar currently shows a couple hundred hits (including patent applications and multiple citations of the same papers), compared with, oh, say, 1 1/4 million for General Electric (which doubtless includes many duplicates and patents). Do multiple Google Scholar hits qualify an organization as notable? --19:10, 13 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep:  Per Edison - Notable.  -  Ret.Prof (talk) 03:39, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep on the basis of Edison's references.    DGG ( talk ) 03:01, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Let's look at the references:
 * LEARN TO MANAGE THE IMAGINATION INDUSTRY Published on July 7, 1992. I don't have a subscription, starts off talking about Basler being a company that turns commodity parts into products with high software content. Can't tell if this is notable from the accessible fragment.
 * Basler Electric to locate new factory in Charleston - Press release, of a fairly illiterate tone (public "conscription"? I thought they got rid of slavery in Charleston? ). Not notable.
 * CIRCUIT SURVIVOR Taylor company beats the odds, looks to expansion - only part of the article accessible, no visible assertions that this company is somehow notable other than by surviving a shakeout?
 * Basler Electric leaving Caraway - Press release. This one is even described as "local news" Companies close down unprofitable plants all the time, how is this notable other than locally?
 * Europe's Trouble Felt Here Finanical Analysts Cautious, Fearful - A Letraset headline ready to re-use every week. (This instance is from 1992, but you could have seen it in today's paper, couldn't you?) No mention of Basler in the visible part of the "reference".
 * Basler Electric power supplies recalled by CPSC - Cool, I didn't know Basler made any "consumer" stuff at all. And after this incident, maybe they don't. Are product recalls indication of notability? Especially of only one truckload of products...4000 wall-warts is not a huge amount of product. Two power supplies heated up and melted with no injuries.  Notable?
 * Two New York Cities Install Basler UMOS - Press release. No analysis, nothing showing any unique notable attributes of this company.
 * All we need is a few items of the form "Basler Electric is pleased to announce the appointment of Joe Schmoe to the position of Chief Acronym Officer" to make this a complete collection. I wouldn't write an article on a company if I couldn't find better indication of notability than these. --Wtshymanski (talk) 13:48, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * In the first reference you dismissed, they refer to a June 8 1992 Newsweek article which covered Basler. Perhaps it would be worthwhile to see the extent of coverage there. Or are you convinced a priori that any coverage of the company is "a press release?" Edison (talk) 18:56, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm looking at WP:ORG and it says "Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject is not sufficient to establish notability." It also says "Deep coverage provides an organization with a level of attention that extends well beyond routine announcements and makes it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about an organization". Where is the Newsweek article, then? The batch above are not enough, in my opinion, to demonstrate deep coverage or notability of the organization. --Wtshymanski (talk) 19:05, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I expect it can be found in any library. Edison (talk) 19:06, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Good hunting, then. But one 18-year-old article is a slender case for notability. --Wtshymanski (talk) 19:13, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * CommentThe age of a source in no way reduces its usefulness in establishing notability. See WP:N. Notability is not temporary. The article in Newsweek is "America's Edge," by Mark Levinson, June 8, 1992, pages 40-43. In it is a section of 112 words about Basler, noting that they are moving into more of a software role, adding value to the collection of components which go into their specialized products, with considerable value added by their engineers and programmers. I found numerous articles in trade journals such as Transmission and Distribution World, April 2000 "Automation developments: two New York cities install Basler UMOS" (Utilities management operating systems). Such articles discussing new Basler products, or installations of them, may well have started as press releases, but in the end they appear as copyrighted content of the magazine, and the magazine classifies them as "news/magazine article" rather than ad or press release. I found articles in newspapers about factories opening or closing, such as the Knight Ridder /Tribune business news, March 20, 2002, "Various manufacturers in Highland, Ill., cut jobs due to economy," by Jennifer Saxton of the Belleville News-Democrat. It has a 138 word section on Basler which is clearly not a press release, since it extensively quotes the union president at the plant and says company officials had no comment. In general it is not the largest company in the world, but it does not have to be as large as General Electric to be notable. It has long been a notable supplier of utility relays, and has been a well known electrical manufacturer for many decades, and has significant coverage in several reliable and independent sources. Edison (talk) 23:23, 14 September 2010 (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.