Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PCO Imaging


 * 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The result was keep, and withdrawn by nominator. ~Anachronist (talk) 13:18, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

PCO Imaging

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article created by a new account, which immediately created an article that gives the appearance of notability without actually providing any evidence as required by WP:CORP. No in-depth coverage, just small mentions here and there. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:42, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  Every morning   (there's a halo...)  17:10, 12 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep As per WP:ORGCRIT Reference from the book is notable "Hyperspectral Imaging for Food Quality Analysis and Control" and few others References describe about the the article to fulfil Primary criteria Mangodona (talk) 19:55, 12 June 2018 (UTC) — Mangodona (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * WP:ORGCRIT requires significant coverage in multiple sources. That book, and other sources, provide just a trivial mention of PCO Imaging, not significant in-depth coverage of the company. As a paid editor, you have a conflict of interest. You really should have created this in draft space and submitted it for review, which is the only venue available on Wikipedia for editors with a conflict of interest to publish articles here. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:00, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Weak keep Seems notable in few referencesWP:SECONDARY keep for now Heshiv (talk) 06:33, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Which references, exactly? I'm willing to withdraw this nomination if a convincing case can be made beyond a simple assertion. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:52, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Ref this one i found Heshiv (talk) 14:02, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
 * That's a product announcement that gives zero coverage to the company, and not even much coverage of the product. That won't count. Anything else? ~Anachronist (talk) 13:46, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I found few more (significant coverage) reliable independent references but most of them are in german but published by German Newspaper Mittelbayerische Zeitung1, 2, 3 and Nasa is also using their technology check this one  Refso kindly have a look Heshiv (talk) 05:47, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Maybe also that article from Fairchild Camera and Instrument or that scientifc one:  .. maybe we should really keep that article --Lauranos (talk) 12:49, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
 * No. Both of those were authored by an employee of the company (Gerhard Holst), therefore they are both primary sources, which don't count toward notability. We need significant coverage by reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Neither of those two sources are independent. I ask again, what secondary sources provide any significant in-depth coverage of the company as required by WP:CORPDEPTH? ~Anachronist (talk) 13:46, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Hey  Another additional References: The New Econonmy, Mittelbayerische Zeitung, Innovations Report, Brandeins, Institute for Laser Science: ... Keep--Lauranos (talk) 08:00, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * OK let's review the new sources provided in the most recent comments:
 * Mittelbayerische 1: Short regional coverage about a non-notable (as described by the article) award, in which it is unclear whether the contestants were students. I wouldn't say this confers notability on the company.
 * Mittelbeyerische 2: Regional coverage of the founder and the company, this is a good source. Bavaria is a small region, however; national coverage would be preferable.
 * Mittelbeyeriche 3: This is decent coverage of the technology PCO produces, with some coverage of the company. Again, regional publication. This source is OK, but it's a local source to the company so such coverage is routine.
 * NASA: Coverage of a product, not the company. This doesn't count.
 * The New Econonmy: This is an interview. It's a primary source, not independent coverage.
 * Innovations Report: This is a company and product profile written by the company. Not independent coverage.
 * Brand Eins: This one is good. I never heard of the publication but it's a good article.
 * Institute for Laser Science: Brief product announcement, likely written by the company. Not coverage of the company.
 * The sources listed give me the impression that the company is working hard at public relations, which is especially evident given that a company representative wrote the article. Nevertheless, it looks like we have two separate sources that give sufficient coverage (Mittelbeyerische and Brand Eins). Unless someone else comes along to object, I think the article can be kept. Today would be the day this discussion closes. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:36, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 19:02, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Nice review of the sources & i am agree with you & i think now we can keep the page Heshiv (talk) 09:28, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
 * great source review... we should keep it :) Lauranos (talk) 09:41, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I got pulled away. The admin should have closed this rather than extended. I will close this myself as the nominator. ~Anachronist (talk) 13:18, 21 June 2018 (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.