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.
Does not appear to be notable. The two references provided are internal to the company, and are only supporting information in the infobox. The body of the article is completely unreferenced.
Beyond My Ken (
talk)
04:47, 19 July 2020 (UTC)reply
Conditional support: I'm having a hell of a time finding secondary, third-party sources for this article (even searching for it just turns up stuff published by Kohlhammer), so I'm for deletion, so long as all the links to it are replaced by the
Template:Interlanguage links. –
♠Vami_IV†♠06:09, 19 July 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep. Publisher founded in 1849. First scientific paperback series on the German market. Annual revenue 64.1 million Euros The notability does not have to be online. Nor in English. Perhaps you should look in the files of the
Stuttgarter Zeitung?
Rathfelder (
talk)
23:36, 19 July 2020 (UTC)reply
Notability requires independent third-party reliable sources. For all we know, the information currently in the article is a fairy-tale -- I don't think it is, but there's no AGF for article notability, it has to be shown.
Beyond My Ken (
talk)
00:54, 20 July 2020 (UTC)reply
Just dug through Stuttgart Zeitung's (available) catalog and couldn't find anything usable on the article. Closest was Kohlhammer employees complaining about traffic congestion in Stuttgart. –
♠Vami_IV†♠01:18, 20 July 2020 (UTC)reply
It's hard to believe that a 150 year old publisher has no coverage, but
WP:NCORP should not be handwaved. Dewiki does have one source that looks independent: [1] (
t ·
c) buidhe03:08, 20 July 2020 (UTC)reply
References
^Franz-Josef Sehr (2005), Freiwillige Feuerwehr Obertiefenbach e. V. (ed.), "Entwicklung des Brandschutzes", 125 Jahre Freiwillige Feuerwehr Obertiefenbach (in German), Beselich, pp. 116-117,
ISBN978-3-926262-03-5{{
citation}}: CS1 maint: date and year (
link)
This article is a summary of the German article. But sadly German Wikipedia seems much less strict on references than English. However I find no shortage of quite detailed news about the companies current operations. And maybe you should look at the newspaper they published, the Neue Deutsche Familienblatt.
Rathfelder (
talk)
08:54, 20 July 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment - As a rule, in any article which I've nominated for deletion, I'm pretty quick to withdraw the nomination or change to "merge" or so on, as the circumstances change, but I don't think that's the case here. I thank Rathfelder for their edits to the article, expanding it with sourced information. However, the core of the article -- what is now the "History" section and the section on the paperback line -- remain completely unsourced. I do not think that the threshold for keeping the article has been passed.
Beyond My Ken (
talk)
21:53, 20 July 2020 (UTC)reply
If the consensus here is to "keep", I wouldn't suggest you do that. The article is only 5 months old, it can live for a while longer with "CN" tags in them. Where did you get the info from when you write the article? One of the two internal documents? If so, it would be better to put that in as a ref, along with a "Primary source inline" tag.
Beyond My Ken (
talk)
01:50, 21 July 2020 (UTC)reply
I translated the German Wikipedia article directly. It is reasonable to assume the German editor(s) got their info from Kohlhammer's website, so I'll look it over. –
♠Vami_IV†♠03:01, 21 July 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep: I'm willing to give publishes of significant works the benefit of the doubt, especially a century-old one. The existence of the de.wiki article is also a positive sign. --
K.e.coffman (
talk)
01:21, 21 July 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.
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.
Does not appear to be notable. The two references provided are internal to the company, and are only supporting information in the infobox. The body of the article is completely unreferenced.
Beyond My Ken (
talk)
04:47, 19 July 2020 (UTC)reply
Conditional support: I'm having a hell of a time finding secondary, third-party sources for this article (even searching for it just turns up stuff published by Kohlhammer), so I'm for deletion, so long as all the links to it are replaced by the
Template:Interlanguage links. –
♠Vami_IV†♠06:09, 19 July 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep. Publisher founded in 1849. First scientific paperback series on the German market. Annual revenue 64.1 million Euros The notability does not have to be online. Nor in English. Perhaps you should look in the files of the
Stuttgarter Zeitung?
Rathfelder (
talk)
23:36, 19 July 2020 (UTC)reply
Notability requires independent third-party reliable sources. For all we know, the information currently in the article is a fairy-tale -- I don't think it is, but there's no AGF for article notability, it has to be shown.
Beyond My Ken (
talk)
00:54, 20 July 2020 (UTC)reply
Just dug through Stuttgart Zeitung's (available) catalog and couldn't find anything usable on the article. Closest was Kohlhammer employees complaining about traffic congestion in Stuttgart. –
♠Vami_IV†♠01:18, 20 July 2020 (UTC)reply
It's hard to believe that a 150 year old publisher has no coverage, but
WP:NCORP should not be handwaved. Dewiki does have one source that looks independent: [1] (
t ·
c) buidhe03:08, 20 July 2020 (UTC)reply
References
^Franz-Josef Sehr (2005), Freiwillige Feuerwehr Obertiefenbach e. V. (ed.), "Entwicklung des Brandschutzes", 125 Jahre Freiwillige Feuerwehr Obertiefenbach (in German), Beselich, pp. 116-117,
ISBN978-3-926262-03-5{{
citation}}: CS1 maint: date and year (
link)
This article is a summary of the German article. But sadly German Wikipedia seems much less strict on references than English. However I find no shortage of quite detailed news about the companies current operations. And maybe you should look at the newspaper they published, the Neue Deutsche Familienblatt.
Rathfelder (
talk)
08:54, 20 July 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment - As a rule, in any article which I've nominated for deletion, I'm pretty quick to withdraw the nomination or change to "merge" or so on, as the circumstances change, but I don't think that's the case here. I thank Rathfelder for their edits to the article, expanding it with sourced information. However, the core of the article -- what is now the "History" section and the section on the paperback line -- remain completely unsourced. I do not think that the threshold for keeping the article has been passed.
Beyond My Ken (
talk)
21:53, 20 July 2020 (UTC)reply
If the consensus here is to "keep", I wouldn't suggest you do that. The article is only 5 months old, it can live for a while longer with "CN" tags in them. Where did you get the info from when you write the article? One of the two internal documents? If so, it would be better to put that in as a ref, along with a "Primary source inline" tag.
Beyond My Ken (
talk)
01:50, 21 July 2020 (UTC)reply
I translated the German Wikipedia article directly. It is reasonable to assume the German editor(s) got their info from Kohlhammer's website, so I'll look it over. –
♠Vami_IV†♠03:01, 21 July 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep: I'm willing to give publishes of significant works the benefit of the doubt, especially a century-old one. The existence of the de.wiki article is also a positive sign. --
K.e.coffman (
talk)
01:21, 21 July 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.