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 delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:56, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Graebert[edit]

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

Non-notable company. Nothing significant about it. just because it has niche segment to deal in and its old does not make it appropriate for Wikipedia. Else Wikipedia will become a software product directory. Light2021 (talk) 15:58, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:55, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:55, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:55, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete is there a single RS to be found there? This is an advertisement - David Gerard (talk) 21:00, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as PR for a company whose environment would be PR and that alone, the sources themselves are not only PR but formatted as PR therefore entirely unacceptable; this is quite honestly speedy material if not for the thin claims of "first" tossed here and there, advertising and that's exactly what is deleted. SwisterTwister talk 22:05, 28 September 2016 (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.