Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Enterprise Group Freudenberg

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. Sandstein 17:49, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Enterprise Group Freudenberg

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lacks substantial RS coverage. Zero refs in the article. Tagged for notability since October. Epeefleche (talk) 10:56, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'd be guessing that this is the same company as this on German Wikipedia, but there is so little content that one couldn't confidently add an interwiki link. AllyD (talk) 11:08, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting -- that article also suffers from a paucity of independent RS refs.--Epeefleche (talk) 11:16, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well there is a decent article from Die Zeit. But, for the current context, we lack solid linkage that it relates to the same firm. AllyD (talk) 11:29, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and redo to be about the company headquartered in Weinheim that the German Wikipedia article is about. It's not unusual for articles on other-language Wikipedias to lack references; en.wikipedia is unusually strict in its requirements. I've communicated with the new editor who created the article and they have big English problems and haven't yet confirmed that it's the same company, but the company in the German article meets the notability standard. Not only is there the article in Die Zeit that AllyD found (for which thanks!) but there are at least 3 articles on it in Der Spiegel: archive search result. That's good coverage on a national level, so I'll go ahead and rewrite it using those sources and anything else I can find, unless someone else does first. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:51, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I've now extensively rewritten and expanded the article; I did find other sources; and it should be moved to Freudenberg Group, which is what the company calls itself on its website. The article creator now realizes the de.wikipedia article is about the same company [1]; they were unaware of it, presumably because they don't read German. They have almost 200 edits on zh.wikipedia but their only edits on en.wikipedia concern this article, so they are at a newbie disadvantage here. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:02, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep substantial new page (and the maintenance tags can go too, as inappropriate for Yngvadottir's rewrite). AllyD (talk) 21:03, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, with kudos to Yngvadottir for his rewrite. Do note that I'm not getting anything from the one source in the "brands" section, so AFAICT that is unsourced. Nolelover ^Talk^·^Contribs 04:33, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's a pull-down menu on their main page (identical content in German and English versions); see tab to right of center. Hence I used the > symbol. And thanks :-)Yngvadottir (talk) 05:06, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, I see it. Thanks! Nolelover ^Talk^·^Contribs 05:11, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.