Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Storz & Bickel


 * 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   delete. No sources = delete. Redirects can be added at editorial discretion but we do not routinely redirect every nn company that makes products to that article Spartaz Humbug! 05:20, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Storz &amp; Bickel

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

This is seemingly a non-notable company selling a non-notable product. The website of the company is blacklisted, and this was the only reference provided. SmokingNewton (talk) 15:12, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Regarding the blacklisting of the company website, please see discussion at MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist (request withdrawn as moot). --87.79.173.212 (talk) 19:25, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Keep: for me (not beeing an expert for vapor.) this company seems to be an innovator on the sector of vaporizers (there are 137.000 Google hits for its main product), so I also cleaned up the article (remember it's a stub); of course it remains a lot of work - for experts. Dewritech (talk) 21:17, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Hm. Before SmokingNewton nom'd the article for deletion, I tried to at least wikify the wording and added the company's own website as a primary source (the entire article is obviously based on the company profile from their website but it was never appropriately referenced). Prompted by the AfD I looked around for potential secondary sources, but it has ultimately left me agreeing with SmokingNewton that no independently verifiable article can be assembled about the company itself at this point in time. Therefore, delete per nom, then redirect (to Volcano Vaporizer) [otoh, nvmd] without reservation against potential recreation at a later point, circumstances permitting. --87.79.173.212 (talk) 19:47, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:44, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The product is notable, no doubt about that. But it does not automatically follow that the company is notable as well. There either are independent reliable sources which are at least partly dedicated to the company -- or there aren't. [added: Stubs are not "proto-articles" and somehow exempt from our core content policies. Reliable independent sources to verify notability and a minimum of content are obligatory, not optional.] Your keep is therefore entirely invalid, [unless you or someone else actually finds and names reliable sources about the company itself]. --78.34.201.39 (talk) 21:40, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: the last editing of the article was almost a delete... Dewritech (talk) 08:01, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You mean blanking? No, I merely removed a few unreferenced sentences. --78.34.201.39 (talk) 08:43, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * And didn't look for references either; now there is not too much left to be referenced. Dewritech (talk) 09:23, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Excuse me? (a) I did look for sources about the company specifically, found none, therefore believe the article should be deleted. (b) The entire "article" was based on the company's self-representation on their website (which is a big no-no in and of itself) and even that promotional company history wasn't even properly referenced (another big no-no in and of itself). Look for yourself (the website is blacklisted btw but it contains no malware as far as I can see): http://www[dot]storz-bickel[dot]com/vaporiser/storz-bickel-company-vaporiser-manufacturer.html (c) Did you actually look for sources before voting to keep? --87.79.59.160 (talk) 17:36, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * "now there is not too much left to be referenced" -- No problem: Just find reliable sources and reinstate whatever material they can back up. --87.79.59.160 (talk) 17:44, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * There is something like or . But as said before, I’m not an expert here. But with 137k's at G notab. can be assumed. Dewritech (talk) 16:32, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

"notability can be assumed" -- No, it absolutely can not because for all we know every single one of those hits is primarily about the Volcano Vaporizer and contains no further information specifically about the company. Like the pdf files you linked: They contain almost nothing about the company itself (but feel free to edit the article and add whatever material about the company which the sources can back up). --87.79.176.70 (talk) 13:56, 10 June 2010 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget  22:30, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions.  —Dewritech (talk) 21:22, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete, I find no significant coverage in reliable sources for the company. The company is not notable because it has a notable product. -- Nuujinn (talk) 23:03, 15 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Volcano Vaporizer. It appears that this company is notable primarily fort his product.  As such, it would be appropriate to redirect to a section in the product article to give a little information about the company.  Any additional sourced information can continue to be added in that section.  If the company creates more notable products, then the redirect can be undone, and the section material merged in.  I see no good reason for outright deletion. -- Whpq (talk) 16:27, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * No sources about the company itself is not a sufficient reason for outright deletion iyo? Please present those sources, don't speculate on their existence. --84.44.236.95 (talk) 16:37, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * There aren't sources to establish notability. However, nobody is challenging the existence of the company.  The company exists, and that it makes the Volcano Vaporizer is not disputed, and is verifiable with articles such as this domain name dispute with a distributor. As such there is no justification for a standalone article, but as the maker of a notable product, a redirect to the product article is appropriate.  -- Whpq (talk) 16:56, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * In other words, you agree that the page should be deleted and subsequently redirected. We do not need the page history to create a redirect in its place, you know. And in this case, the "article" history holds nothing of value. --87.79.188.197 (talk) 22:31, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * No, that is not what I am saying. I don't see why the history needs to be deleted as well.  It's not like this is a slanderous libelous unverified BLP.  It's simply unverified information on a company that hasn't established stand-alone notability.  The material in the history is probably more or less true, but not verified.  It can be useful in the future for somebody looking to expand the section on the company as a starting point for research. -- Whpq (talk) 10:38, 18 June 2010 (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.