Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mutoh Europe nv


 * 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. Mgm|(talk) 09:49, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Mutoh Europe nv

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Per discussion at DRV this article has been restored and listed at AFD to allow a discussion of sourcing. As this listing is a procedural action by the admin closing the DRV, no opinion on the article is offered. Spartaz Humbug! 19:22, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails WP:CORP.  No evidence at all of third-party coverage, let alone substantial third-party coverage in reliable sources.  I'm adding Intelligent Interweaving technology to this AfD, as it's just a brand name of this company.  Tevildo (talk) 15:46, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Mutoh Europe nv sells products to the sign industry, third-party coverage is done by sign related sites. It's not a mainstream product because of it's specialized usage. So the online sources are limited, but the company has a fair market share in it's industry. It's important within it's industry, so that makes it notable. The I² technology is not just a brand, it's an innovation much like the iPod wheel interface when first released on the iPod. It makes that prints are of a higher quality and it's invented by the company, thus they get the credit. Again it's of importance for the sign industry. .IT (talk) 08:21, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * "It's important within it's industry, so that makes it notable." I'm afraid you need to _prove_ that it's important in the industry, rather than just _asserting_ it.  We need substantial coverage in reliable third-party sources, not just press releases. Tevildo (talk) 09:28, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The thing is, it's hard to find online resources on the sign industry. Most coverage is done in magazines, which rarely publish their articles freely on their websites or trade shows and then it's again a press release just like here. This makes proving me point to you difficult. It's not a standerized product for mass market, so the coverage is limited to the things mentioned above. .IT (talk) 06:45, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That, unfortunately, means that it can't pass our notability guidelines. The firm I work for (which I hope you'll forgive me for not naming) is a major player in our particular field of industry, but virtually unknown outside it, and it therefore doesn't have an article.  Mutoh seems to be in the same position. Tevildo (talk) 17:42, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Same goes for: Mimaki, Roland and Océ. Their merit is questionable too. However I²'s relevance is for the entire printing industry as it deals with bleeding and banding. Mutoh Europe nv is the company behind an innovative technology, it also has in some segments of it's industry a 30% market share. Sure the general public doesn't know the brand, but which printers do you think make the large ad's like those of the release of the iPhone. This is an enclopedia and because one brand is only known to a specific industry, shouldn't mean it shouldn't be included. Only a hand few people know certain species of animals excist, is that a reason not to include them? I am dissapointed wich such an argument. .IT (talk) 06:25, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Reference rules don't require that resources are available online, only that they exist. Kate (talk) 16:34, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  I 'mperator 12:23, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Seems notable. I would move the aritcle to Mutoh Holdings and include this unit in a broader article there. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:14, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep there are apparently awards. Probably move and expand as CoM suggests. DGG (talk) 03:13, 9 May 2009 (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.