Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Taprogge GmbH


 * 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. — CharlotteWebb 09:14, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Taprogge GmbH
Procedural relisting, after the G11 speedy deletion was overturned at Deletion Review. A consensus at DRV existed to relist at AfD immediately, and as such I abstain as this is procedural.  Daniel.Bryant  08:05, 23 February 2007 (UTC) The illustrations and most of the text are a clear copy  of various parts of their website, but at least some of the images have been given permission in Wikicommons, and I think permission wold be given for the text as well. Someone who actually knows about civil engineering is really needed to edit this. I think it likely that it is indeed N and our problems with it are the style in which it is written, and our unfamiliarity with the appropriate sources. Ref: http://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/patog/week23/OG/html/1307-1/US07055580-20060606.html DGG 03:47, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete There are no sources at all. Nothing to show notibility, nothing is verifiable. I think the article is very good and should be given a change to provide these things, hopefully during this AfD. Beause of the lack of sources there is a COI in that the info must have come from somebody working for/involved with the company. There are not even clear claims to pass WP:CORP. Will revoke vote if any sources given etc.--Dacium 08:25, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete, sources are insufficient, but then, from what I know about GmbHs (Corporation with limited liability) they only have to disclose information to the Internal Revenue Department (secret) and to their shareholders. Therefore I see very little chance of finding independent verifiable sources. Alf photoman 15:45, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep, in view of source found by DGG, but tag as expert needed Alf photoman 13:49, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * weak keep The key N considerations are the unsupported claims that "Nearly 90% of all steam power plants in the world are equipped with Taprogge tube cleaning systems and debris filters, and there is a similar market penetration in the industrial sector"  Their web site contains  "TAPROGGE generated several hundreds of international patents" The basic invention was in 1949, now long out of patent protection, so they have been presumably patenting improved versions on a regular basis.. They do cite a German text on  the general subject, which is possible adequate if it were available.  If it is in use worldwide it should be possible to source in English. I am not about to do it, as it would be too much work, but at the same time, I am not comfortable deleting it.
 * The text hasn't been taken from the company's homepage but has been translated from the de:Taprogge as the german origin, so there is no copyvio anymore.The same is to be mentioned about the pictures and the grafics. As the first step I would suggest to move the article to an other lemma, Taprogge for example. --Markus Schweiss 12:45, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * As next step I will ask for checkable sources in the english language, I will publish them if possible or link them in the article. --Markus Schweiss 13:22, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Done and here are additionally some patents as pdfs:
 * 
 * 

--Markus Schweiss 05:29, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep The intro paragraph needs to be rewritten though. This is just another example of what bull dung the "primary notability criterion" is. This is a mid-sized German engineering company, active since the 1950s. Does anyone actually think it has never been covered by neutral sources? The point of creating specialized notability criteria was to establish cases where notability is not in doubt, even though secondary sources might not be easily accessible. Clearly this is given here (and btw, there are 29 English language sources in Factiva). Abtw, the German version is considered "Lesenswerter Artikel" (cf. "Good article"), so much for G11. trialsanderrors 21:26, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per DGG source finding. This appears to be a technologically notable company. --Oakshade 17:55, 26 February 2007 (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.

I only want to inform the members of the board that Mr. Markus Schweiß is involved in a conflict of interest belonging this article, because he is a fully employed sales rep. for this company. Other companies who have got the same size will never be mentioned in the englisch wikipedia neither in the german wikipedia. Kind regards You can directly get him on the phone under the number 237--80.144.245.53 12:33, 30 March 2007 (UTC)