Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TTTech


 * 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 -- Y not? 07:36, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

TTTech

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Organization fails notability criteria based on type of citations provided in article as well as an independent search of news, books, and other independent media. Aside from the fact that the article appears to essentially be a promotional vehicle for the company (WP:ADVERT), the following reference items fail to establish notability for the following reasons:

Citations: 1.) This is a link to the company's own web site (not independent— fails WP:IS).

2.) Also a link to the company's own web site (again, fails WP:IS).

3.) "Server not found/ dead link" error, no way to verify what type of source this was, text provided in citation gives no indication that the source is independent, reliable, or secondary.

4.) This is a paper co-authored by a co-founder of the organization (fails WP:IS).

5.) Another paper presentation with the same problem (fails WP:IS).

6.) This is another link to the company's web site (fails WP:IS).

7.) This is a link to the web site of a consortium of which the company is a member (fails WP:CORPDEPTH).

8.) This is a link to another organization of which the company is only mentioned as an industrial partner (fails WP:CORPDEPTH).

9.) This is a link to another organization's web site that credits the article's subject with having achieved a certain degree of wind-powered operation. This is a routine (if interesting) achievement, comparable to a press release, which apparently applies to about a hundred organizations within the company's nation (Austria)— it is not a competitive award, and cannot be used to establish notability (fails WP:CORPDEPTH).

10.) This is another link to the company's own web site (fails WP:IS).

11.) This specifically IS a press release ("Presseaussendung" — fails WP:IS).

12.) This is a record of a statement made by an employee of the company about a type of airplane (the Airbus A380) (fails WP:CORPDEPTH as a quotation from an organization's personnel as a story source).

13.) This is a link to a news article about certification for use of a technology created by the company by two government authorities. The company itself is not mentioned anywhere in the article— this citation could be used for an article about the technology, but does not establish notability for the company itself (fails notability by way of WP:PRODUCT).

My greatest concern, however, is that the majority of the article's content appears to have been composed and is regularly updated by a single user, Austria2010, who has never written text for anything other than this article and two corresponding articles on the company's technology— this raises concerns as to who this editor is and whether or not he/ she is in fact independent of the article's subject (concerns: both WP:IS and WP:COMPANY).

While it appears that some of the technology developed by the company is notable, there is no evidence that the company has any notability independent of this technology (reiterate concern: WP:PRODUCT).

Given the above, and given that I have not been able to find any suitable independent, reliable sources in other contexts for this company that are anything other than routine, passing, or trivial, I propose that it be deleted. KDS 4444   Talk  00:49, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 18 June 2013 (UTC)


 * delete Just because it's a badly written article that conveys nothing. I don't care what their office address is and how many employees they have. That's non-encyclopedic trivia that's a business directory and changeable, not something that benefits an encyclopedia.
 * Their core technology, TTP, a real-time capable Ethernet development would be encyclopedic and worth covering here. However no-one has written that article. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:45, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * (Ironically, there actually IS an article on TTP to which THIS article has no Wikilinks as yet— I would go ahead and put them in myself, but unless the consensus ends up being to keep the article, that's probably a waste of time.) KDS 4444   Talk  00:12, 19 June 2013 (UTC)


 * A more solid case for deletion has not been made. Inanygivenhole (talk) 00:13, 19 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Actually at least two Wikipedia articles already: I would lean to a merge into Time-Triggered Protocol and TTEthernet minus all the marketing language (please, they do not sell solution platforms!), but would also think a delete is not out of the question if that is consensus. The problem I foresee with a delete is someone may just create another advertising article in the future, and we would need to waste more time debating and deleting again vs. improving the current ones. Not sure if it is worth a "salt" option yet. The company has been around for longer than most, and the technology has some notice here and there (e.g. original research publications etc.). But clearly tons of uncited promotion needs to go. W Nowicki (talk) 16:13, 19 June 2013 (UTC)


 * We can do a redirect here, can we not? I agree, there is actually a good case for making sure the article's subject cannot be recreated in the unforseeable future and then another deletion discussion possibly to follow.  Deleting it altogether allows for this possibility with greater ease, while a redirect shunts potential information seekers to the company's notable products while stripping out all the advertising fluff.  And if the company does achieve notability someday, someone can view the log of the redirect and access this very discussion— and if they have actual citations to add, they can change the redirect back into a full article.  Or we can delete it and I won't cry either.  KDS 4444   Talk  00:14, 28 June 2013 (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.