Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Papierfabrik Louisenthal,

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 19:18, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Papierfabrik Louisenthal,

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

no indication of meeting WP:NCORP. Claims in article are sourced to the company website. Google searches not finding WP:significant coverage. noq (talk) 19:59, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:13, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:13, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While the article is inadequate and needs some work to be acceptable, the nominator somewhat misrepresents the source situation. I have done a 5 minute google search and have found the following sources:

[1] an article in Münchner Merkur a reliable albeit regional newspaper
[2] from Sächsische Zeitung, a significant newspaper from Saxony
[3] from Dresdener Neueste Nachrichten, a minor newspaper from Saxony

In all three sources, coverage is significant. Now, in No.2, there might be concerns over independence but my cursory look through the sources has shown several additional articles which could be used. Overall, the subject meets WP:CORP. Modussiccandi (talk) 00:33, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge & redirect to Giesecke+Devrient, in the process dialling down the promo. RS references notwithstanding, I can't see how this warrants a separate article. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:33, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 23:52, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I could see keeping or merging. Am leaning towards merging, slightly. Balle010 (talk) 04:28, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I too agree that if expanded this article could be kept, or if not merged. Skingo12 (talk) 15:57, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Can the comma be removed from the title? It's bothering me so much! Haha. —WikiVillager (talk) 17:54, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's annoying. It would have been best if it could have been removed before the deletion nomination, and I don't know why it wasn't done by anyone, such as the deletion nominator who presumably knows better than the article creator, but now we are here it's best to leave things alone. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:36, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It has been there for 320 years, so I would suggest more sources available. scope_creep^Talk 17:54, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment; despite the fantastic edits that have happened to this article in the last couple weeks, it's still citing exclusively posts from the company itself. @Modussiccandi: I would !vote keep if you added refs to those newspapers you mentioned in your comment. jp×g 10:52, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@JPxG: I have added the sources and given the article a rudimentary make-over. It's still far from being "repaired" though. Modussiccandi (talk) 11:25, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have also added one independent secondary source in English to the very good edits done to this article. There are several others in German available as well. It appears to me that RS and notability are sufficiently covered to keep.--Concertmusic (talk) 14:42, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:46, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have added one more short paragraph and independent source to the article.--Concertmusic (talk) 19:18, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not a single one of the references meets the criteria for establishing notability as per WP:NCORP. But - the building itself appears notable based on its history and the mentions in some of the articles posted above by Modussiccandi. If the article is repurposed to be a lot more about the building, this is a Keep. But if the topic is the business based in the building, we haven't been able to locate references so the best suggestion is to merge to Giesecke+Devrient as above. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:26, 30 November 2020 (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.