Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hansa-Flex


 * 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. ansh 666 17:47, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Hansa-Flex

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Doesn't appear to meet WP:CORP. The references cited are predominantly primary sources, with the others being in specialist publications that aren't of use for conferring notability. My searches have not found anything better. SmartSE (talk) 19:02, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions.  M assiveYR   ♠  20:27, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions.  M assiveYR   ♠  20:27, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:10, 6 October 2017 (UTC)


 * It seems as if this is just an odd campaign against paid editing. To my mind the statement on the sources distorts the reality.
 * A company is a system with history, a product range and a market. The market of Hansa Flex is the world market. Hundreds of branches demonstrate this. Turnover and number of employees indicate the position in the market of hydraulics. This is not a consumer market, right. It’s b2b, therefore information about history, product range and so one is provided at the company website and  in financial statements, published in “Handelsregister”. (Making false statements at Handelsregister would be punishable.) Hansa-Flex is recognized in special business magazins like „f + h fördern und heben – Zeitschrift für Materialfluss und Automation in Produktion, Lager, Transport und Umschlag“, „MM MaschinenMarkt“,  „ZulieferMarkt“, „Hydraulics and Pneumatics“. These kind of papers where used here, also daily newspapers like „Darmstädter Echo“ or “Weser Kurier”. Sources named at “Further reading” indicate that Hansa-Flex is mentioned in literature as a relevant player in the hydraulics. Atomiccocktail (talk) 08:40, 6 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment User:Atomiccocktail's edit summary for the comment above, inserted here, does not accurately reflect his involvement and conflic of interest. A discussion about his behavior is not germane to the discussion about whether the article on Hansa-Flex should be retained, and should not be conducted in this thread, so I have started this discussion instead. Mduvekot (talk) 11:07, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete Let's first address a few misconceptions. A company is a legal entity for carrying on a commercial or industrial enterprise. A company is presumed to be suitable topic for an encyclopedia article if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, per WP:GNG.
 * WP:ORG further clarifies the notability requirement for companies. It explains that there is no inherent notability. The argument that the scope of the market or it's turnover or the number of branches establish notability is thus invalid.
 * The argument that information about history, product range and so one is provided at the company website and in financial statements because Hansa-Flex primarily conducts commercial transactions with other businesses makes no sense. We don't have to rely on IBM as a source because it hardly engages in business-to-consumer transactions. How a company conducts its business and what kind of customers it has have no bearing on its suitability as a subject of an encyclopedia article.
 * Neither is the argument that the statements are factual, or even that making false statements would be punishable, convincing. It is assumed that all statements are correct. That something is true is not a reason to include it.
 * The use of trade publications is problematic because such publications rely heavily on press releases and publish announcements.Such announcements may be useful for industry insiders, but have no relevance to an encyclopedia. The notability implications of type of coverage is explained in WP:ROUTINE.
 * Contrary to the claim that Sources named at “Further reading” indicate that Hansa-Flex is mentioned in literature, I have not been able to confirm that this is the case. There is no mention of Hansa-Flex in the index of Hydraulik. Grundlagen, Komponenten, Systeme. The mentions are captions of photos of hydraulic equipment that are credited as manufactured by Hansa-Flex, and one sentence: "Dieser Prüfstand wird erfolgreich zur Qualitätskontrolle von Hansa-Flex AG Aggregatebau in Dresden eingesetzt" (This test rig is used successfully for quality control by Hansa-Flex AG Aggregatebau in Dresden). Das Einzige, was stört, ist der Kunde: Clienting ersetzt Marketing mentions Hansa-Flex as one of four examples of "Kundenorientierung" (client focus), where a customer survey lead to strategic changes such as an increase in their e-commerce offerings.
 * TLDR; nobody who is independent of the subject has written in-depth about the subject. This is not a notable business, and this article only exists because the subject wanted to promote itself, and was willing to pay someone to write it. Had someone felt that it was time that our article about Hydraulics got a good overhaul and offered a scholarship to an independent researcher with well-documented credentials in the field to rewrite it, I might have reconsidered my view of paid editing. Something aling those lines exists of course, see WP:GLAM, but I never see a commercial entity that is interested in improving coverage of their field without menting them . Paid editing as we see it here is invariably promotional, non-neutral and falls under What Wikipedia is not. Mduvekot (talk) 20:51, 7 October 2017 (UTC)


 * It is pretended that there is no independent reporting on Hansa-Flex. This is wrong and can only be asserted, because trade journals and economic press are put under general suspicion. A regional newspaper such as the Weserkurier is suddenly suspected of being addicted. Are we playing "guilty on suspicion" here?
 * Transferred to other topics that suspicion would mean that only the top players of a topic (here companies) are allowed to be portrayed as specialist media for an encyclopedia could only be used in rare cases - they are suspected of being "dependent" on the object itself. Atomiccocktail (talk) 07:37, 11 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom and Mduvekot fails WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:24, 12 October 2017 (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.