Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zoltek

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. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:46, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Zoltek

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

Company does not appear to be notable per WP:CORP. The references provided are corporate/financial profiles or extremely trivial coverage in PR-style material, and reliable sources about the company do not appear to exist. Kinu ^t/_c 16:51, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:36, 29 June 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:11, 6 July 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, Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:34, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes the lowest of all thresholds, that of having a verifiable existence. This write up by COMPOSITES WORLD is a little bit of meat, I suppose. A highly esoteric page, written in a tolerably non-commercial style, and a classic example of WP:NOBODYSEEMSTOCARESOWHYSWEATIT?. Carrite (talk) 16:44, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Existence is not notability. I fail to see how this "write up" is anything more than a directory listing. --Kinu ^t/_c 16:56, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:LISTED company with ~2000 Google News hits, and about 97 on icis.com (chem industry news site) following all their major activities: acquisitions, lawsuits etc. One of those stories says it's among the "no more than 12 enterprises that are capable of mass-production around the globe" (of carbon fiber). Independent coverage is trivial to find, even not very flattering one, e.g.[1]. A WP:NOEFFORT nomination. FuFoFuEd (talk) 23:26, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable company. Click the Google news archive search at the top of the AFD. It gets coverage for what it does. You can also search for its name at various newspaper sites like Reuters and you can see them mentioned there [2]. Most of those results are about the company, I only spotting one that was a guy's name. This one [3] talks about them investing 100 million dollars in a new facility. Yep. That's a company worthy of note. Dream Focus 17:24, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep but stubify: I'm seeing little depth of coverage here -- mostly stock market movements & the occasional potted profile. Also the information currently in the article is almost entirely unverifiable -- so needs to be either sourced or removed. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 17:01, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of the information was put there by one user who made no other edits besides this article except to request his name be changed from Zoltekwiki to JohnKowalik. From the talk page discussion, he does appear to be an employee of that company. So he can probably help find sources for any information that is kept. I just emailed him through Wikipedia asking him to find sources for it. A lot of it can probably be sourced to their official website, although the information pyron seems outdated. [4] Are they still the leaders in the wind turbine market? They don't even list it there now, but instead brag about their dominance in the airplane break market. Maybe its listed in that brochure. Of course can the company be absolutely trusted when it says that it holds the "dominant position in the marketplace", or would we need other sources to back that up? Dream Focus 17:19, 19 July 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.