Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Institute of Rare Earths Elements and Strategic Metals


 * 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. Liz Read! Talk! 22:38, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Institute of Rare Earths Elements and Strategic Metals

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Small company with no notability, almost completely written with sources from the company itself and in advertising style. Google almost doesn't know the company with exactly 15 (!) hits for the original German name and 19 für the English, some of which come from Wikipedia and WikiCommons. Some of the (few) independent sources used to write the article don't even mention the company (e.g. and therefore the article basically just presents the views of the company itself, while the role of one rare independent example (a short study for the German Bundestag) is not only presented twice, but also grossly exaggerated. (It only uses the company to explain some rather trivial information which could also have been found in the Wikipedia). Please also note that there is the possibility for paid contend, as the company declared: "Companies are included in the world's largest encyclopedia if they either generate more than 100 million euros in annual sales or if they simply deserve to be mentioned. We are therefore very pleased to be included in this group. In the following months, the entry in Wikipedia, which is currently only available in German, will also be translated into other languages. Furthermore, additional categories and links to the individual rare earths, base metals and secondary metals are created." That's exactly what happened in the German Wikipedia, where about 25 paragraphs with clearly advertising content have been added in ever rare earth article and some others, where there was even less connection to that company. Therefore there has been a unanimously consensus (everyone except the author) to delete that entry, which has been done today, see . Andol (talk) 19:41, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Germany,  and Switzerland. Shellwood (talk) 21:10, 6 December 2022 (UTC)


 * The delete request is a transfer of the deletion action in the German to the English Wikipedia.

The "small company", which does not need any advertising or promotion (only a few entries in google), gets its importance from worldwide active subscribers, who access its paid database 4,500 to 5,000 times a day. ISE consequently achieves little public attention and thus a presentation relies on self-disclosure. Statements from a website can of course be based on information and are not automatically "advertising". Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:41, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The aspect of "advertising" has already been dealt with here and accepted as settled after appropriate revision.
 * The pleased reaction of the company ISE to the article in the German Wikipedia was not the result of a demand by the author - that there should be links to and from other articles is required by the WP (No orphan). The company will quickly realize that it is not allowed to do translations into other languages itself. As an author, I was interested in getting to know the working methods, formal rules and customs of the English Wikipedia with the entry of ISE.
 * The mentioned source [3] (NZZ) has the purpose to describe the transit trade in Switzerland and not to name ISE. This should be understandable from the context.
 * The eightfold mention of ISE as a source for mostly comprehensive contributions or quotations in the report of the Wissenschaftlicher Dienst des Deutschen Bundestags is not a trifle, but a high-profile publication that values the exclusive expertise of the institute and was produced to inform the parliament and federal institutions about the international commodity situation on REE and lithium. [Report of the Bundestag WD 5 - 3000 - 003/2022 on the resource rare earths: Wissenschaftlicher Dienst des Bundestags 03-2022 Retrieved September 01, 2022.] There is hardly any better evidence of unique relevance, which also allows the German WP regulations to omit the 100 million Euro turnover limit for companies.
 * Innovative is also the contribution of the ISE to a quite probable stability in the world trade (as a further criterion of this turnover exemption), by means of the daily determination and publication of the current prices of thousands of substances as well as the offer of a purity certification for serious transactions. GerhardSchuhmacher (talk) 08:46, 12 December 2022 (UTC) — GerhardSchuhmacher (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:33, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete. Zero hits on Google news, Zero hits on Wikipedia library, Zero hits in Google books. Seems not notable. The long and comment that lacks a vote and doesn't refer to a single policy or guidance is not convincing. CT55555 (talk) 04:30, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * You just keep claiming that the company is very important. Because of the database and the role in the market and such thing. However, there is absolutely no evidence of that. Nothing in the article (or the internet) makes that claim plausible. Where does it even come from? It has to be from the company itself, as there are no independent sources writing something like that. That's not how Wikipedia entrys are written. We cannot just take the company's self-promotion that it's incredibly important, because it says so. We need independent sources. But in the entry there are almost no independent sources, almost everything comes from the company itself. It's just ISE, ISE, ISE, and if you take that out, there would be next to nothing left. Which is clear, given the fact that Google knows next to nothing about that company. That's why the entry has been deleted in the German Wikipedia minutes after becoming eligible, with a clear consensus (everyone with the exemption of you). And please don't claim the short piece from the Wissenschaftlicher Dienst des Bundestages makes the company notable, because that is "a high-profile publication". It's far from that. That organization gets thousands of request every year and then writes short pieces of information. It's not a key study or exhaustive or lengthy report commissioned by the parliament, its a short compilation of some basic information to inform one or a few members of parliament. Being mentioned in such a short piece doesn't make a company notable, especially since the information the report took from the company was quite trivial and could have been easily taken from the Wikipedia, too. Andol (talk) 23:12, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Andol's data is unreliable. Thus, the article in the German Wikipedia was not deleted immediately, but after 7 days of discussion. The Scientific Services (see German WP "Wissenschaftliche Dienste") receive thousands of requests from parliaments worldwide, employ 64 people and award three media prizes. The dilemma here lies elsewhere: First, representations of a website are not automatically "advertising". I have only checked and taken over information for customers, which must and are absolutely serious with the high costs for the subscriptions. To deliver prices for 5,000 substances daily is an extraordinary achievement. Insight into this area should be convincing: ( https://ise-metal-quotes.com/ ) Secondly, Wikipedia's relevance criteria, which demand neutral newspaper articles with mention of names, are the problem. (Two years ago still as e. V. the institute would have been taken in the de-WP without circumstances). There are a number of articles that use price information (also over time) from ISE, but do not mention the source institute. Journalists are not obliged to do this! But "uniqueness" is also a valid reason for WP - if you accept that they don't lie and have 4-5,000 hits daily. I myself am a new author of en-WP, but with my expertise on these commodities so crucial today and the increasing reflection on the situation, it would not remain with this article. Based on the ISE sources, one could update many Wikipedia articles. GerhardSchuhmacher (talk) 01:40, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Please do yourself a favour and familiarise yourself with the relevant guidelines: WP:GNG. Once you do so, you will see that nothing in your long comments here is relevant. You would need to show us that independent reliable sources have written about the organisation in significant detail. It seems like they have not. And it doesn't matter how important you think they are, it matters how much they made the news, or academic literature, or books. CT55555 (talk) 02:00, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The article got eligible to be deleted after 7 days, as usual, yes. And it was deleted 21 minutes after midnight, which is "minutes after becoming eligible", isn't it? So which data from me isn't reliable? There was also at least one contributor that criticized me for not pushing for a speedy deletion, while there was absolutely no one of more than half a dozen editors who saw even a tiny bit of notability. the point is: There is almost no sources that even describes the company. The whole article is based on inside data from or strong opinions on that company. But that's not how articles can be written. You can claim the company is extremely important, as you do, but it just doesn't matter, because we need independent sources to conform that, not your word or your opinion, that you think so. If you delete every piece of information that isn't proven by independent sources, the whole article shrinks to a few words. And unfortunately that is NO exaggeration. Andol (talk) 20:29, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The ISE sources are published by the company themselves; we need non-trivial sourcing in references unconnected to the entity being discussed. Oaktree b (talk) 15:09, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Delete all sources found are PR material published as such. Perhaps being an "informal network of xxxx" as the article suggests is the reason why we can't find RS, who knows. It's a delete, as it's not at GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 15:07, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The matter stands with regular rules against the association, which became an AG ("public limited company") only because of the cooperating storage company two years ago. I still see the work of ISE as valuable - price trends over decades are also documented there. (US/China crisis). And the "self-presentation" seemed to me like a professional instruction manual. But the information based on it could be removed, the article "minimized". With the history of development "according to its own information", a sentence on the structure and the preservation of the "reception". I received information that there is still a newspaper interview with the CEO, perhaps with frame data. When I receive the article, I'll enter a minimized version for viewing here on Saturday. GerhardSchuhmacher (talk) 21:24, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I've pointed out the relevant sections from NCORP below. The sourcing fails NCORP criteria for establishing notability. You mention stuff such as the company providing a valuable service but that is simply your opinion and no Independent commentator has researched his company and come to the same conclusion. Have any industry analysts researched and published a report on the company? This often happen with publically quoted companies but I am unable to locate any reports at all. You also say that you've received information about an interview with the CEO - just beware that there's a good chance that if the article does not contain any "Independent Content" and simply relies on the CEO or the company for the information with no independent analysis/research/etc, then that article likely fails ORGIND.  HighKing++ 14:41, 24 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete This is a company/organization therefore WP:NCORP guidelines apply, not just GNG as some !voters have pointed to above. To meet our guidelines for inclusion, we require in-depth and significant content from independent source. WP:SIRS tells us that *each* source must meet the criteria for establishing notability - so the quantity of "coverage" isn't relevant, nor can we combine a little bit from source one with a little bit from source two and say "that'll do". Most importantly for this topic organisation, we need sources containing "Independent Content". which must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. Between CORPDEPTH and ORGIND, these sources fail. We've got regurgitated company PR/information or official publications of information (which was provided by the company). Topic therefore fails WP:NCORP.  HighKing++ 14:37, 24 December 2022 (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.