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. Izno (talk) 01:33, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hemmersbach[edit]

Hemmersbach (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Fails WP:ORGIND and WP:CORPDEPTH. Refs are mix of blogs and press releases. Potentially notable. scope_creep^Talk 19:14, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:44, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:44, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep These [1] [2] are not press releases, they are full write-ups in an independent newspaper (Nürnberger Nachrichten). Multiple winner of a statewide ministerial prize does carry some weight. Quite some overlap of other material with the multiply embattled Hemmersbach Rhino Force, but I don't think WP:NOTINHERITED applies (notability is not just based on the rhino thing). --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:09, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is another full-write ups from indepedant, reputable newspaper [3]. BR is Bavaria's public broadcasting service with 8 million listeners each day and did a dedicated interview on Hemmersbach's CEO, Ralph Koczwara [4]. Admittedly, the rhino story was one focus but equally so was Hemmersbach. I did include some blogs and press releases which I am happy to remove if wished by Wiki editors? Even if these articles were removed there would be no grounds for WP:ORGIND and [[WP:CORPDEPTH] due to variation of independent sources (ZDF, Nordbayern, South China Morning Post, BR, FairPlanet, Nurnberger Nachricthen etc). - MichaelDubley (talk) )02:03, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The first two post are write-ups. Where is the clarification for the first post. If it was notable, where is the additional write-ups in other established sources. The second one is PR with the owner smiling and telling folk about how he grew up, took his company from 20 people to the size it is now. Classic PR, as a company originating story. You see it all the time. It well known advertising pattern. Both of them look like classic PR. All the photographs from Rhino force are all copyright Hemmersbach, indicating PR. If it genuine they would photographer doing the work. More PR. The third references [5] states its a sponsored article in the lede. Also a press-release. We will go through the references. I'll go through the references one by one. scope_creep^Talk 11:20, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Hi Scope Creep, please allow me to answer your comment here. I, unfortunately, don't understand 'Where is the clarification for the first post.'. If you could kindly explain the post you mean I would be happy to try answer that for you? In regard to the additional write-ups you mention, I would classify the six distinct news organizations as this and they are as follows ZDF, Nordbayern, South China Morning Post, BR, FairPlanet, Nurnberger Nachricthen. If there is a hard rule for how many are required for a wiki-article then please direct me to it and I would be happy to make appropriate edits. The BR interview [6] is not a press release but an interview with an established journalist from a reputable radio organization. You are correct the line of questioning regards the companies originating story but as Hemmersbach was invited on the show it is not a press release. The show must be sponsored however not by Hemmersbach or an affiliated organization. You are correct the photos from the Domestic German newspapers (Nürnberger Nachrichten) and NordBayern are supplied by Rhino Force. It is expensive for photographers from a domestic newspaper to send a photographer to Africa and I guess it was a financial decision to use Rhino Force's photos. You can see the photos taken in Nuremberg are by the two domestic German newspaper photographers and not taken by Hemmersbach or Rhino Force [7]. The International journalism organizations used their own photographers, please see the links [8][9][10][11] but I digress as the content that uses Rhino Force as copyright pertains to the Rhino Force wiki page and not this one. For sure if you have any other questions let me know here or on my talk page and I would be happy to discuss so the article is in-line with how you and the editors think is appropriate. Many thanks! - MichaelDubley (talk) )01:18, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see your last article Rhino Force was deleted. Ive also noticed that your Anti-poaching article had a big section of Hemmersbach, which has now been removed. A subject like Anti-poaching is academic not a corporate article and to link it that way is WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE. It is also highly WP:PROMO and WP:PUFF. scope_creep^Talk 23:42, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Scope creep:, after reading your links to wiki rules I agree your edits to Anti-poaching make sense. Thank you for your advice! Perhaps you have advice for the Hemmersbach article? It's clear I do not know the wiki world well so I'd appreciate any advice you have time to give. The dream would be to have an article you are satisfied fits wiki rules, would you like me to remove the blog posts? - MichaelDubley (talk) )01:12, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Nürnberger Nachrichten is an esteemed and independent German newspaper, and does seem unrelated to the company in question; as such I do not think that WP:ORGIND applies. I also do not see any blogs cited as sources. However, I can somewhat relate to the sentiment that some parts of the article look somewhat PR'ish - but not to the degree that it would fail WP:PROMO. ParanoidAndroid83 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:41, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A WP:SPA editor, who has made no effective contribution to Wikipedia. scope_creep^Talk 10:20, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, MichaelDubley is complete missing the point of WP:ORGIND by saying that the reference passes because the newspaper "is an esteemed and independent German newspaper". ORGIND is about whether the content of the article meets requirements, not about whether there are any corporate ties between the topic company and the publisher. HighKing⁺⁺ 21:23, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent point @HighKing: and so obvious that it is intrinsic but still needs to be stated. I'll keep it in mind. scope_creep^Talk 21:32, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Hi @Elmidae: Do you think the article is genuinely notable? scope_creep^Talk 15:04, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'd say so. Not massively, but the indicated newspaper coverage is genuine, not promo features; and as I said, I think winning those prizes carries some weight. I have certainly seen other corporate articles pass with this kind coverage. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:58, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The awards are not notable. They are awards for business growth. Even the fastest growing company as a criteria, is super tenuous at best, and mostly generic in nature. It is everywhere. scope_creep^Talk 23:34, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Hi @Scope creep:, I saw you made changes to the article. I like two of the changes you made to remove the youtube video, linkedin article and blog post. Thanks for that! I saw you also removed the section on the award that Elmidae thought added weight to the articles worth. I would ask you to please keep this section so it is acknowledged when the admin reviews the page for deletion. Since yourself and Elmidae + myself are in a disagreement over whether the award section is notable I think we should leave it for the admin to decide. - MichaelDubley (talk) )08:37, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agree on that. Mentioning this type of award is pretty standard in company articles; and as you should know notability guidelines per se don't apply to material in articles, only to the article subject as a whole. I have reinserted the paragraph. This is a point that is separate from the overall assessment we are trying to reach here. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:01, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not a single reference mentioned in the article or at this AfD meets the criteria for establishing notability for companies/organizations as per WP:NCORP. We require multiple sources (at least two) of significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. What we have are a series of puff pieces and PR which fail the criteria and having searched I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria. Topic fails GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:11, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. As I went through the citations I began to wonder if this was an IT company or a social/environmental activist organization. Nice that they are good corporate citizens but none of that explains why this company meets WP:SIRS. In picking just two the South China Morning Post citation is paid placement where the end of the article carries the disclaimer, “views and opinions expressed are those of the sponsor..”. The IHK Nürnberg für English language site doesn’t return anything about them the company name is ran through a search. Page creating editor may be a single-purpose account as there are few contributions that are unrelated to this article. Blue Riband► 04:00, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Having read the above discussion and the sources for the article, I think it should be deleted. The sources, in spite of being mainly in reliable publications, are too complimentary of the company to demonstrate clear-cut independent content. This is why I think the company is a WP:ORGCRITE/WP:COMPANY fail. Their mention in an FT list is good but not significant coverage. Overall, this has the look of a really good PR drive. I would change my mind if several pieces of disinterested coverage in secondary sources were to surface. With regard to MichaelDubley, his contributions list does nothing to assuage concerns that the account is a WP:SPA. Modussiccandi (talk) 22:41, 1 October 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.