Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wagner & Co.


 * 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:56, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Wagner & Co.

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

No notability is established. Says it was nominated for some award but didn't win. not enough reliable sources for general notability guideline. Comatmebro ~Come at me~ 01:16, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  Comatmebro  ~Come at me~ 01:18, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 29 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete Per nom; doesn't seem to meet notability threshold. — Anonymous Dissident  Talk 11:44, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * "removed an obnoxious template that was placed here" -- D Big X ray  21:47, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Original text of removed template: Substantial text was removed from this article prior to or during AfD. This notice is added to prevent misrepresentation of the potential of the article under discussion, compromise of the relevance of contributions to the discussion, and complication of the discussion's conduct and closure. This is not an official WP notice Anarchangel (talk) 00:17, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Indeed, it's not an official notice. It's nitwittery that puts assuming bad faith ahead of the actual project goals.  The content removed was a copyright violation of copyrighted non-free content, that was a press release to boot. Uncle G (talk) 18:01, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree this was the least appropriate use of the tag, because the material was arguably actionable under WP rules. However, I note that COI and COPYVIO are mutually exclusive; even in the case of a third party doing edits without authorization, the COI would become PoV. A press release added to WP by the releaser is a conflict of interest, but logically not a COPYVIO.
 * The template was very carefully worded, and does not violate AGF. With respect, you did. It does not assume that someone intended, for example, "misrepresentation of the potential of the article under discussion". Moreover, it addresses what has become a common problem; I urge you to reconsider what is the real problem, if not here, then in AfD as a whole.  Anarchangel (talk) 19:14, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * An example: Articles for deletion/Material heresy. The first, second, and arguably third voter are commenting on one article; the rest of the AfD is commenting on another completely different one. Now I hurry to say, this is an example of the system working, because the alteration was arguably an improvement. But bear this in mind: refactoring other people's comments without good reason is not accepted across the board, because "doing so creates misrepresentations". The least we can do is require people who change article text during an AfD to say so at the AfD. Anarchangel (talk) 19:39, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Anarchangel, thank you for working to improve Wikipedia. Unscintillating (talk) 01:40, 8 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 12:46, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 13:45, 13 July 2012 (UTC)




 * Keep – This topic meets WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:GNG per:
 * — Northamerica1000(talk) 07:29, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * — Northamerica1000(talk) 07:29, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * — Northamerica1000(talk) 07:29, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * — Northamerica1000(talk) 07:29, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * — Northamerica1000(talk) 07:29, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment – Note that sources have been added to the article, and the article is in the process of being expanded. Northamerica1000(talk) 07:44, 16 July 2012 (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.