Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ROSEN 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.  A  Train talk 08:02, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

ROSEN Group

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Doesn't appear to meet WP:CORP. The references cited are predominantly primary sources, with the others being in specialist publications that aren't of use for conferring notability. My searches have not found anything better. SmartSE (talk) 19:08, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions.  M assiveYR   ♠  20:30, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions.  M assiveYR   ♠  20:30, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:05, 6 October 2017 (UTC)


 * It seems as if this is just an odd campaign against paid editing. The statements on the sources have little to do with reality.
 * 42 references are given. Independent newspapers are used like “Neue Osnabrücker Zeitung”, “Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung”, „Handelszeitung“. Special weeklys like „vdi Nachrichten“ or magazins like „bbr Leitungsbau, Brunnenbau, Geothermie“ are used also. The company has a very special business, that’s why such sources are helpful. Perception, size and position in their business area underline notability. Some references used are primary sources (website), right. It’s in line with ORGIND (“Once notability is established, primary sources and self-published sources may be used to verify some of the article's content”). Atomiccocktail (talk) 08:08, 6 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment User:Atomiccocktail's edit summary for the comment above, inserted here, does not accurately reflect his involvement and conflic of interest. A discussion about his behavior is not germane to the discussion about whether the article on ROSEN group should be retained, and should not be conducted in this thread, so I have started this discussion instead.Mduvekot (talk) 11:04, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete The Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung dedicates single sentence to the company: "Der Molch wurde eigens für diesen Zweck von der Rosen-Gruppe entwickelt". (Molch translates to newt, but in this context a molch is a Pipeline Inspection Gauge, aka a 'pig') The FAZ is a reliable, indpendent source, but the covergage they provided is in no way significant. So the FAZ as a source fails to establish notability per the GNG: significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. The Neue Osnabrücker Zeitung, unlike the FAZ, is a local newspaper, but might provide sufficient in-depth coverage if there were more than the interview and the report on their kindergarten. As for the Handelszeitung, that appears to be a routine announcement of a change in mamagement. My attempts at ana analysis of the sources are frustrated by the way the article is sourced. The Handelsblatt citation is made up of three sources: It is written as

They should have been witten as three individual citations instead: I can't tell if this is a deliberate attempt at obfuscation or mere incompetence, but it doesn't facilitate verification of the sources and invites further scrutiny. If anyone can simplify this process by pointing out the two instances of significant coverage that could establish notability, that would be immensely helpful. I have not found them yet. Update: Change to firm delete after in-depth review of the sources. Promotional, lacking in depth. As an example, take the sourcing of the claim that Rosen manufactures 'intelligent plastics', a marking term. Rosen itself actively promotes the use of that term. We're asked to refer to Braun, Dietrich: Kleine Geschichte der Kunststoffe. Hanser, Munich 2013, p. 282. Braun makes no mention of intelligent plastics, or the Rosen-group, for that matter. Page 282 is part of a timetable in the appendix of the book. That is not in-depth coverage. It doesn't even discuss the subject. Fails the GNG, and CORPDEPTH and is an unfair burden on volunteer editors to clean up after a paid editor. Mduvekot (talk) 13:06, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete per Mduvekot Fails WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:45, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Here it is pretended that roses are not subject to independent media reporting. This is wrong.
 * Ems-Zeitung, Lingener Tagespost and Meppener Tagespost belonged to the group of the Neue Osnabrücker Zeitung. The reporting on Rosen is frequent and intense in these media. They did not only deal with "kindergartens", as suggested here.
 * The Stanser newspaper (Swiss) has potted the company on 10 May 2006 (Stanser Molche worldwide, 680 words, 4600 characters).
 * The Frankfurt Allgemeine Zeitung describes in detail how the analysis of the Nordstream pipeline was carried out. This is done in the Frankfurter Allgemeine by a detailed description of the machine ("pig"), with which this was done. It is, as the newspaper makes clear, a specially designed measuring device of Rosen. To find the "Rosen" character combination in the FAZ article and then say "only occurs once" is a "measurement method" which leads to completely wrong results. The entire article describes the inspection procedure Rosen has developed together with the operator of Nordstream, which has led to a route record.
 * A similarly intense report on exactly this use of Rosen has also brought vdi nachrichten. This is the most important weekly for German engineers. (“In zehn Tagen durch die Röhre auf dem Ostseegrund.” In: vdi nachrichten, 04 July 2014.)
 * In addition, this weekly magazine for engineers has brought an extensive company profile in 2016. ("Im Emsland sind die Molche los") (970 words, 6100 characters)
 * A similarly extensive portrait can also be found in the Deutsche Verkehrs-Zeitung (DVZ). The Deutsche Verkehrs-Zeitung (DVZ, formerly Deutsche Logistik-Zeitung) is a specialized journal of the transport and logistics branch since 1947. (Frische, Tim-Oliver: Pipeline tour with a world-wide user. In: German Logistics Newspaper, 18 September 2012). 863 words, 6143 characters

To state that intelligent plastic is nothing more than a Rosen marketing term shows the quality of the delete "arguments". It’s a term used in various books, long time before. Google books has it.

Reference 5 does not state that Rosen is mentioned there. It states that brief information about "intelligente Kunststoffe" / "intelligent plastics" (term and history) can be found there: “On the historical development of these plastics and on the term at issue, please refer to Braun, Dietrich: Kleine Geschichte der Kunststoffe. Hanser, Munich 2013, ISBN 978-3-446-43685-5, p. 282 f.“

Rejection against footnotes, which point to more than one source, is not a convincing reason for the deletion demand. Atomiccocktail (talk) 08:44, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
 * My own understanding is the use of footnotes in this manner is indeed standard in the deWP; it is however advisable to rewrite articles for the enWP in enWP format.  DGG ( talk ) 16:32, 14 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep I think in this case the sourcing is sufficient to keep the article, and despite the COI, the above analysis does show sufficiently comprehensive coverage.  DGG ( talk ) 16:35, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Good analysis of sources above, which shows that there's a bit more to this than apparent. Notable. My name is not dave (talk/contribs) 07:41, 15 October 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.