Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zwick Roell Group


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:34, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Zwick Roell Group

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

First, this page fails to provide any independant, reliable sources to establish notability, so it violates WP:RS and WP:N. In addition, this article is written like an advertisement, a blatant violation of WP:NOADS and WP:NPOV. Mathemagician57721 (talk) 16:16, 2 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Note - nominator has been blocked indefinitely. Parsecboy (talk) 19:37, 2 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - the company satisifies ntoability with coverage in a variety of sources such as, and as examples.  My Google News search turns up many more results for the company (some press releases, many not). -- Whpq (talk) 16:55, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete because the article is written like an advertisement and it fails to provide any reliable secondary sources. --JAVA &lt;talk&gt; 00:13, 5 September 2009 (UTC) — User:J4V4 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment - it doesn't matter if an article doesn't have any sourcing, it's whether sourcing is available which I've shown does exist. - Whpq (talk) 00:43, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget  21:30, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:04, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Question: another AfD was relisted for procedural reasons due to nominator being blocked - Cool Hand Luke suggested renominating - should this be the case here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexandrDmitri (talk • contribs)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:04, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Relisting comment. Debate wasn't sorted, along with one "delete" !vote from an spa, this makes a second relist reasonable. Further note, the block on the nominator was reduced to 31 hours and he is currently not blocked. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:07, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Major industrial company showing extensive coverage at Google News. Should never have been a question on this one. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:50, 15 September 2009 (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.