Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zero Per Zero


 * 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. -- Cirt (talk) 08:04, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Zero Per Zero

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

I was not able to find any writing about this company in reliable, independent sources. The chief claim to notability is that the company won a Design Award of the Federal Republic of Germany, but the linked page provided as a source does not confirm this award, and I was not able to find any evidence that this organization did get this award. The other claim to notability is that the company was given an International Design Excellence Award, but again, no confirmation of the award is available on that organization's web site.

Prod removed by creator after the addition of these "sources." FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 19:27, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

http://www.german-design-council.de/en/designprize/designpreis-2010/gewinner.html, the site for the awards given by the German design council, has the record of Zero Per Zero winning the award, under their submission of the 'City Railway System.' They are second from the bottom. The second link was faulty and has been fixed to verify the award. Several other awards have been added under the 'awards' section. Syw1479 (talk) 22:47, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:09, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:09, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - This seems reasonable to keep given the various references and awards as notable sources. However, it's a bit of a stub and could probably use more "encyclopedic" content. --Artlovesyou (talk) 06:37, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Delete little coverage in gnews. for something to be worthy of inclusion it has got to get wider coverage than the industry it's involved in . LibStar (talk) 14:39, 10 October 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.