Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Butting Group: Difference between revisions

Butting Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Procedural nomination. I’ve just declined a speedy G11 tag on this article, and I don’t disagree the page is positive in an unbalancing fashion. This page appears to be a recent translation of the German language coverage of this subject (which has been in de.wiki pagespace since 2008). Having this experience already once this week on another translated de.wiki corp article, I’d like to assume more good faith to the translator this time. Is this translation appropriate coverage in an en.wiki article? Note: in July the company announced expansion into North America, perhaps how the translation was inspired. BusterD (talk) 19:44, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improves. Refs #4 and #11 are enough for an NCORP pass. Katzrockso (talk) 01:06, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Thank you very much for your comment @BusterD:.

In my view, the subject meets Wikipedia’s notability criteria for organizations. This is supported by annual revenues exceeding one billion euros in 2024, significant investment and expansion activities in the United States, and coverage by national and international media, including independent outlets such as NBC. Even after removing any language that could be considered promotional, sufficient encyclopedic content remains.

I will continue revising the article over the next few days, particularly with regard to neutrality, structure, and independent sourcing, and I remain open to further suggestions.Bildbau21 (talk) 20:36, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve. I see enough coverage about the company in the German press. Also an extremely old company, there should be more about it to find. —Afus199620 (talk) 21:33, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

improvements I have already made the structure of the article more neutral in several areas. Tomorrow, I will further refine and smooth the History section. This part is particularly important, as the company has a long development (since 1777) that is closely connected to European industrialization.Bildbau21 (talk) 16:08, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It’s not clear to me as a “procedural nomination”, if User:BusterD is presenting a deletion rationale here. Without any arguments put forward by editors for deletion, this might be a “procedural keep”.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:06, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The original editor who nominated this for speedy deletion (MediaKyle) did not give any rationale for deletion in the speedy deletion nomination, he just cited WP:G11, but offered no rationale beyond that. Absent a deletion rationale presented by anyone else in this AfD, a procedural keep is the only justifiable option. Katzrockso (talk) 02:15, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]