Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Renzenberger, Inc.


 * 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.  Jamie ☆ S93  23:59, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Renzenberger, Inc.

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

Appears to be a biased single issue article on the company. Either needs to be revamped to an NPOV article or deleted. SpacemanSpiff (talk) 00:14, 24 May 2009 (UTC)


 * There's no bias in that article. The only thing that can be construed as bias, is mentioning the lawsuit, which is a fact, so there's nothing bias about it. It doesn't matter to me one way or the other. I guess the references I provided are not good enough...and the company doesn't really exist?? Maybe Renzenberger is disrespectful to the goD of monkey nuts...who knows? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tacosunday (talk • contribs) 07:57, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Article needs improvement, but no reason for deleting. Greenman (talk) 21:06, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Keep I'm not seeing the bias either, not in the current article or the brief revision history. The author of the article has made a moderate number of contributions on a variety of topics, going back several months, and spot-checking them they seemed to be valuable contributions (some involve replacing blog "sources" with more reputable ones), and I see no evidence of spam activity or conflicts of interest.  Also, a google news archive search turned up, with minimal effort, additional sources that could be used: .  Personally, I find articles on this sort of topic very interesting, and I think they enrich wikipedia, whether they're left as stubs or expanded into full articles.  If you object to coverage of certain material in this article, why not pull up some of the sources and write what you would think to be a more balanced article?  Cazort (talk) 00:42, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:34, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:34, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Non-notable, non-consumer business.  Referenced to minor business journal of limited circulation, looks like an internally generated puff piece; to its own site, and to the self-published site of a law firm that sued them.  Google News brings forth mostly reports of lawsuits they were involved in, or accidents involving employees.  Not convinced that any of this makes a case for notability. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 17:47, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think a non-consumer business makes anything any less useful or important to include in wikipedia. In particular, I tend to think non-consumer businesses are more important because they tend to advertise less in places that the average person sees, and they tend to be off the radar of most media coverage.  I also think this needs to be taken into account in notability discussions.  This certainly isn't a high-profile company but there are enough reliable sources to create a small, tightly-sourced article (some of the sources, however brief, do describe what the company does, which is the core of it).  I don't see what would be lost by keeping this page as part of wikipedia and therefore I can't stand by deleting it.   Cazort (talk) 21:09, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I realize that "notability" is something of a term of art on Wikipedia. I still think it bears some relationship to the ordinary meaning the word carries in English: that a fair number of people have heard of something.  This is why I suspect that consumer businesses that deal with the general public are going to find it easier to pass muster than non-consumer businesses do, in terms of verifiable information about them being found in edited sources.  Here, all the sources seem to be either internally generated puff pieces, or attack pieces relating to lawsuits.  All of this material is essentially self-published by people who hope to gain from circulating it.  None of it seems to be reliable.  This business seems to relate almost exclusively to Union Pacific Railroad.  Perhaps it might be worth a couple sentences there. But making an article out of the unreliable sources I was able to find is going to also involve walking a neutrality tightrope as well. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 03:41, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe this is just a difference of philosophy but I don't think "how many people have heard of something" has any business factoring into a notability discussion. Plenty of minor streets in major cities are more heard of than, say, a Bol loop.  What I think is more interesting is--are there enough sources for encyclopedic content?  And I already see a paragraph that is well-sourced.  Are all the sources I found "attack pieces relating to lawsuits"?  No.  i.e., .  Yes, some of the material I found is essentially press releases relating to the lawsuits.  But there's enough here to expand the page somewhat--and it's already encyclopedic, verifiable, and (as I see it) NPOV as it is.  These are the LAST pages we should be arguing to delete, regardless of how big or small they are.  Cazort (talk) 12:56, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep per substantial coverage in reliable sources. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:40, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep sufficient magterial to show they are a leading company in their particular niche. DGG (talk) 05:27, 4 June 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.