Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hermes Abrasives (2nd nomination)


 * 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. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 09:01, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Hermes Abrasives
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Kept in 2008 on the basis of "it has Google hits" which is simply not enough to pass the newer, more stringent requirements of WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH.

The sources in the article are insufficient to keep this article. The first reference is to the Hermes website, so that's not independent. The second is the narrow, industry focused publication The Manufacturer US, which fails WP:AUD. The articles in Wood & Wood Products and Tooling & Production are dead links, but again, publications with such a narrow audience are hardly an indicator of notability. The German Wikipedia article has no references at all, so we're actually ahead of the game on them and we're still not at CORPDEPTH.

On a search of news, both "Hermes Abrasives" and "Hermes Schleifmittel" (the company's German name) bring up only trivial mentions, no feature stories. The 18 Google Scholar hits waved at the last AfD are also trivial mentions like this: "To reduce surface defects on the platelets the steel plungers of the die-pressing device were polished with SiC grinding paper (WS Flex, Hermes Abrasives Ltd., Virginia Beach, USA) with a grit of p2500." Really riveting stuff.

I did find two case studies in business textbooks that looked not so bad at first, however... per the index, the first the first is only two pages long, which isn't that impressive. The second looks fabulous untill you look two of the four contributors and see that they are employees of Hermes, so it's hardly independent coverage.

Overall I don't think we can keep on the basis of what's available. I'll offer my usual caveat that I only speak English so was only able to Google Translate search for German sources. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 07:44, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 07:44, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 07:44, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 07:44, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:15, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete I'm with PMC on this, references are poor and I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content. Topic fails GNG/WP:NCORP.  HighKing++ 18:38, 24 December 2019 (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.