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. J04n(talk page) 18:54, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Traft[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP, WP:GNG. None of the referenced sources are intellectually independent of the subject, let alone rise to the standard of WP:CORPDEPTH. Rentier (talk) 18:24, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 20:30, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 20:30, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as Unambiguous advertising; corporate spam on nn company of 100 employees. I requested a deletion under G11; let's see if it takes. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:04, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep WP:SK#3 I checked WP:BEFORE D1 Google news, and found a source in English, so I immediately know that there is no attempt here to determine notability. The nomination has said nothing about the statement in the article that this group is associated with a German company of the same name. The article reads well, and the nomination claims to have knowledge of what the sources say, without mentioning that they are all in Russian. The talk page is a redlink, so there is proof that there has been no attempt to engage with the content contributors to resolve problems before coming to AfD. Unscintillating (talk) 23:55, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In revision #816827114, ref 1 merely quotes the company's employee, ref 2 is an interview, ref 3 consists mostly of quotes by the company's employees, ref 4 is another interview, ref 5 is a profile of a sports team, ref 6 is also irrelevant. If you can locate better sources, please do. If you can do it without assuming bad faith on the part of other editors, even better. Rentier (talk) 00:18, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for part of the reply, but I see nothing in my post that leads to words like "assuming bad faith". Unscintillating (talk) 01:09, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - This is corporate spam; it is unfortunate that the CSD tag was carelessly removed since it could have saved us much more time.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 02:31, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per the above. Ralbegen (talk) 18:15, 27 December 2017 (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.