Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Klingspor Abrasives


 * 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. slakr \ talk / 01:49, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Klingspor Abrasives

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Reference issues, promotional Carl Fredrik   💌 📧 14:21, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. WP:CORPSPAM. Since en wiki doesn't have de:Klingspor (Unternehmen) (parent company), cannot consider merge. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 14:41, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Interesting link there to CORPSPAM, but this is a company popular with writers writing to hobbyists. Unscintillating (talk) 11:39, 8 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep A key sentence for me in the article was, "The company is one of the four largest producers of coated abrasives in the world, among other companies Norton, 3M, and SIA Abrasives."  I found that [Klingspor sandpaper] produced better search results.  The North Carolina company is mentioned mixed with the related Klingspor affiliates (i.e, Klingspor Abrasives, Ltd), so the sources blur the lines; and this is reflected in the article.  In addition to the repeated mentions on the other Google searches, Google scholar shows the 1994 Popular Mechanic 's review of the Klingspor Sanding Catalog listed on elibrary.ru, http://elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=2128411.  Unscintillating (talk) 11:39, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete as a clear business listing and what's here is simply overall unconvincing and that's all we need for deleting, regardless if the company is "one of the significant"; while anyone would've considered this acceptable, our policies against advertising largely different and therefore are always non-negotiable against advertising. In fact, all my searches immediately found mere announcements and mentions. SwisterTwister   talk  00:32, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I see the words "business listing" argued as a reason for deletion, but this is not a WP:DEL-REASON. At the RfD for WP:Wikipedia is not a business listing, the closer explained that, "Some [editors] were concerned that this redirect mis-characterises the policy it links to, in order to further their own editorial agenda." and "...there is disagreement as to whether 'business listing' is implied by the policy."  The redirect was deleted, yet your !vote here is still using the words "business listing".  Your explanation at the RfD was, " 'business listing' is in fact business directory".  Unscintillating (talk) 01:31, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 02:20, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  11:35, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  11:35, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar  15:53, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - While not pure WP:CORPSPAM, close enough to warrant WP:TNT.  Onel 5969  TT me 00:07, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Total differential time for the previous !vote was 48 seconds. Unscintillating (talk) 01:32, 26 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete No reliable refs aside from Bloomberg fact sheet. Search tools produce nothing. Lacks notability. Delete. Tapered (talk) 05:08, 27 February 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.