Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/German Pellets


 * 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:20, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

German Pellets

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This is being repeatedly created. THe author doesn't seem to comprehend either (1) the laws on WP:SPAM or (2) the laws on providing reliable 3rd party coverage. Barney the barney barney (talk) 08:38, 3 September 2013 (UTC) Barney the barney barney (talk) 08:38, 3 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I just do not understand why other companies are allowed to publish many information about their company on wikipedia and I wrote a few sentences, in my opinion they have nothing to do with advertising and these few sentences are always deleted.I know that advertising is not allowed but in my opinion that is no advertising. There is no advertising, no solicitation, there is no sales-orientated language used. By reading the article about WP:SPAM I do not find the reason why you are considering that page as WP:SPAM! If there is really something that promotes the company I'll change it on the page German Pellets. MWolli (talk) 09:14, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: Barney, please be careful how you phrase things since the nomination seems a little BITE-y. MWolli, as far as the spam stuff goes, I think that at this point it's less that the current phrasing is considered to be unambigously promotional as much as it's that you've continued to try to add it to Wikipedia. However at the same time, I don't see where anyone has really discussed notability standards or sourcing with you, so I can understand where you would get confused over this stuff. I'll drop a note on your page and let you know about notability and sourcing. That's really the biggest issue with this page right now: it lacks coverage in reliable sources to show notability, but more on that on your page. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   09:27, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Just a note: since almost all of the coverage is in German, I've asked WP:GERMANY for help with finding sources and fleshing out the article. Also, anyone coming in, there is a German language article to pull information from here. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   09:51, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Looking at the German entry, it looks like MWolli translated what was on the other entry and added it here. I know that sometimes different language WPs have different standards on promotional tones and that some phrases or words can have different connotations in another language. I don't think that this is a case of intentional spam, in any case. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   09:56, 3 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep - the article now has refs from RS and passes GNG. Although the references are in German, there is no requirement for English language sources.  Note, I had previously nominated one of the versions for CSD as promotional, so I certainly understand why Barney started this AfD.  I just think that Tokyogirl is correct on what she thinks happened.  Regards,  GregJackP   Boomer!   14:09, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:34, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:35, 3 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. I found a couple more references to add (and passed up Russian references with the same information). Numerous independent sources refer to the company as the largest pellet producer in Europe, and it has received an appreciable amount of non-local coverage, both of which demonstrate notability. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:08, 3 September 2013 (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.