Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nussli Group


 * 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   no consensus. The discussion gets side tracked a few times and no consensus emerges. It doesn't appear that relisting will help. Kubigula (talk) 03:14, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Nussli Group

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Not notable (WP:CORP). All references but one are the company's own website. Can't find independent sources to establish notability.  Lord Pistachio  talk 09:21, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Removing nomination. There were references to the group in Vancouver media when the build Empire Field. The fact that they are building mega-structures makes them notable. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:53, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: Walter, could you explain what you mean by "removing nomination"? Are you arguing for a speedy keep? --Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 17:04, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I deleted the nomination on the page. It's going to fail so why bother. I see it's been restored and additional citations have been added. May we close this waste of electrons now? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:21, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Is there any particular reason why you don't want to make your argument for keep and allow the AfD to proceed as usual? There is no harm in allowing the discussion to take place is there? As it stands it does not meet any of the of the criteria for a speedy keep and therefore should remain open for additional input unless the nominator chooses to withdraw it. --Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 18:36, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: I have put several references from independet sources. Nussli Group is already a Wiki Site in German - has a long history as a big player in major events like the Olympic Winter Games // FIFA World Cup // Indy 500 Mile Race // FIS // etc. and there are no information about this company in wikipedia. Why? --DanielaGreter (talk) 23:01, 28 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment. I have restored the nomination. Walter. Dude. Now, I know that you know that we don't remove AFD notices from articles. Right? ;) If you oppose the article's deletion for whatever reason, state those reasons here in the discussion so that others may weigh in with their recommendations. Removing the template from the article won't stop the article from being nominated, nor will it stop the discussion from taking place. If there were references to the group in the Vancouver media that support notability, simply add them to the article or provide links on this here page. While significance or importance is indicated in the article, this does not equate to notability. We need significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. And honestly, at this point, the article is clearly lacking. This is the thang that makes a company notable. Best regards,  Cind. amuse  17:33, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment agree with Cindamuse; if the nomination is made in good faith, no one should unilaterally decide it has no merit. If the company is as clearly notable as Walter has suggested then it will become apparent in the discussion and the article will be kept. --Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 17:40, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment I just put a few references (US Open / Indy 500 / 2010 World Expo Shanghai / Vancouver Winter Games) to the link. Does it work / is accepted with this external references? Thank you for your efforts! — Preceding unsigned comment added by DanielaGreter (talk • contribs) 18:00, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The references added look like some combination of trivial mentions and press releases. I'm wondering wether you work for this company, since your edit history deals solely with this and related articles.  If so, you should look at WP:Conflict of interest. -- Lord  Pistachio  talk 21:54, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Excuse me, but your comment is really naughty! I follow the same interests as you: to extend the Wikipedia Website! --DanielaGreter (talk) 23:01, 28 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 28 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Notability is now established in the article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:41, 28 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment I'll take exception with labeling the nominator's comment above "naughty". It appears that User:DanielaGreter has created German wiki and English wiki articles on this subject. It appears neither page had the requisite independent sourcing to pass notability, using only the subject's website. It appears one user attempted to bypass this AfD, deleting the template, assuming a keep outcome. That action poisoned this conversation. All this seems naughty. At some point, sources were added. I'd suggest everybody look at this one source: http://www.aroundtherings.com/articles/view.aspx?id=35905. This website purports to be about the subject of "The Business of the Olympics". The article linked suggests the subject business won an international industry gold medal in one category for performing services necessary to the successful completion of the 2010 World Cup events in South Africa. If true I believe this indicates significance and importance inside a pretty small group of impressive vendors. COI aside, I assert that while it does appear these pages were written as promotion, I'm seeing some notability. I'll bet better sourcing can be found in German architectural periodicals. IMHO lacking sourcing the German page go up for deletion discussion as well. BusterD (talk) 23:02, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It appears the website publishes press releases, but since the award notice comes from the international industry org, and not the company, this counts as more than a mere mention. This link: http://www.aroundtherings.com/articles/view.aspx?id=26461 suggests that the subject got a three year exclusive deal with FIS. That seems pretty important to me. I'm still not there, but I'm leaning keep, in spite of the naughtiness. BusterD (talk) 23:20, 28 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment take the personal discussion elsewhere. This is a discussion about the merits of inclusion for the article. The ad hominem attack aimed at the editor suggesting that this may be an employee of the company in question and suggestions that there are articles on two different language Wikipedia articles are also not at issue. What is at issue is whether the company is notable and should be included on Wikiepdia, which it appears is the case, and if that information is reflected in the article so that notability can be verified, which it appears is also the case. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:06, 1 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Weak Delete The company is an international contractor. As such it sometimes works on notable projects (stadia etc.) and receives a press mention for doing so. But I could find no coverage about the company itself, only the fact that it works on notable projects, and notability is not inherited. The Wikipedia article itself seems to exist primarily as a sales vehicle; is it really necessary to list all the company's products TWICE, once in the article and once in the infobox? --MelanieN (talk) 20:33, 6 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Weak keep. Reviewing coverage in German language media, I get a mention in the NZZ as the "worldwide leader for temporary constructions", substantial coverage about allegedly poor-quality goods delivered by Nussli to India , and apparently substantial coverage in the NZZ sunday magazine (Google snippet view). This in aggregate should just about meet minimal notability requirements. Nonetheless I am not opposed to a deletion because the article was apparently written by the firm's person responsible for marketing, in disregard of WP:COI. It might be better to wait until a disinterested party writes an article.  Sandstein   06:48, 8 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Possible Compromise Keep if the negative coverage listed above is included in the article, as this appears to be the most notable event that has gained independent coverage, and this would allay any fears that this is just marketing spiel. Bennydigital (talk) 14:10, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Beeblebrox (talk) 08:59, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * 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.