Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Häfele

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. Sandstein 19:56, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Häfele

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

Company seems non-notable. Google searches (web, news, etc.) don't show up anything in English and my pidgin German suggests that the coverage that is there is trivial. I CSD'ed this and another editor removed the CSD with the explanation in the edit summary that the article's claim that the subject company has "turnover of more than 815 million Euros" makes it notable. I disagree - high revenue != significant coverage in multiple WP:RS. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 00:59, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the decline to the speedy was with the comment that there was an indication of importance. That is not the same thing as meeting notability. It is a deliberately lower bar than WP:N, and this is the correct forum for deciding the latter. LadyofShalott 05:34, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I likewise found mostly trivial third party coverage, and additionally some press release type publications. This subject appears to fail WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:GNG. JFHJr (㊟) 06:52, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 18:46, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the article does not in anyway indicate this company is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:02, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ Keep – Per some sources I've found. Perhaps others can be found.

Coyne Prepares to Build Business for Hafele, Ad Week article
Hafele forms furniture hardware engineering unit, Woodworking Network Article
Hafele mulls franchise expansion, Franchise India article
Design for living: the answer to fashion excess (but don't tell my husband), mentions in The Telegraph
Loox lighting for the furniture market, from Building Talk

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:40, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – More sources found:

Hafele tie-up, The Himalayan Times
3i Infotech signs ORION deal with German brand Hafele, Thaindian News
Häfele offers quality ‘green’ products, Malaya Business Insight
Hafele aims for 20% revenue growth, Bangkok Post
Hafele India: Lighting the way, Hotelier India
Managers go to see factories in supply chain, Saigon-gpdaily.com.vn
Hafele's Minifix production: full speed ahead, CBS Interactive Business Network Resource Library, (Originally published by Wood & Wood Products, Dec, 1995)

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:56, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One thing to note is that the references provided have mostly trivial coverage, though enough trivial coverage might be enough to prove some level of notability. Another thing is that the company has about a billion subsidiaries and child companies. The article is about the biggest of the subsidiaries, but a lot of the sources that Northamerica1000 has found are about different subsidiaries than the subject of the article. I don't mean to disparage Northamerica1000's work, as these are some good sources he's dug up, but I don't think that they are particularly relevant to this article. One thing that I would support is a rename to Häfele Group where we could have a small section on each subsidiary that we can find RSes for, including all the great ones Northamerica1000 found. As I've just finished working on another article, I'd be happy to work with you on that effort. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 18:21, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I support renaming the article to Häfele Group and the addition of subsections per divisions and branches of Häfele Group. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:15, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep References found. And any company making that much money, and having thousands of employees, is notable enough to have a Wikipedia article. Dream Focus 09:41, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bryce (talk | contribs) 15:25, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Although the article needs a lot of work, the company is notable. I support renaming the article to the Häfele Group and expanding it to cover all of the company's divisions. As a licensed contractor, I have been familiar with this company's products for nearly 30 years, and they have been extensively covered in construction industry trade publications. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:20, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment but how is the company notable? The references are great but there is still no clear claim of notability. RadioFan (talk) 13:21, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is defined as "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". There no need for the text of an article to explicitly say that a subject has received such coverage, which is the only meaning I can attribute to the phrase "no clear claim of notability". Phil Bridger (talk) 14:57, 7 January 2012 (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.