From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 no consensus‎. Daniel ( talk) 21:41, 20 January 2024 (UTC) reply

VPK Group

VPK Group (  | 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)

Fails WP:NCORP. No credible claim to notability, statements about the company and their sources amount to only trivial coverage. SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 21:34, 21 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Thank you. Heuften ( talk) 21:45, 22 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To consider sources presented.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk) 03:35, 29 December 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Comment on the sources provided. Refbombing paywalled sources is not helpful. None of the sources provided indicate why the company is notable. All I see is a large number of trivial sources talking about things that all companies do, such as growing in size, acquiring other companies, building factories, moving into new markets, interviews with the CEO etc, all in the local business press. As evidenced by the article itself there is nothing beyond the trivial to see here. There does not appear to be an article on this company in either the French or the German Wikipedias. SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 19:20, 29 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep as it meets WP:SIGCOV. I checked a few sources through my university library; they are in-depth and meet WP:NCORP. We cannot dismiss a source just because it is behind a paywall and in foreign language. See WP:PAYWALL, which says Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access. Some reliable sources are not easily accessible. For example, an online source may require payment, and a print-only source may be available only through libraries. "Article on French or the German Wikipedia" is not a criterion either. 72.172.120.125 ( talk) 20:42, 29 December 2023 (UTC) reply
Which of the sources that you reviewed meet WP:NCORP? SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 17:58, 2 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk) 12:02, 5 January 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Keep. There is extensive coverage in the 2000 issue of Flanders magazine ( [9]), followed by further coverage in books titled Solutions!: For People, Processes and Paper ( [10]), Environmentally Friendly Production of Pulp and Paper ( [11]), Pulp & Paper Europe ( [12]), Wastewater Reuse and Current Challenges ( [13]), Water Recycling and Resource Recovery in Industry ( [14]), and so on. Geeraarts ( talk) 00:48, 9 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relising. I'd like to hear the opinions of some more experienced editors so I'm relisting the discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:08, 13 January 2024 (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.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 no consensus‎. Daniel ( talk) 21:41, 20 January 2024 (UTC) reply

VPK Group

VPK Group (  | 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)

Fails WP:NCORP. No credible claim to notability, statements about the company and their sources amount to only trivial coverage. SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 21:34, 21 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Thank you. Heuften ( talk) 21:45, 22 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To consider sources presented.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk) 03:35, 29 December 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Comment on the sources provided. Refbombing paywalled sources is not helpful. None of the sources provided indicate why the company is notable. All I see is a large number of trivial sources talking about things that all companies do, such as growing in size, acquiring other companies, building factories, moving into new markets, interviews with the CEO etc, all in the local business press. As evidenced by the article itself there is nothing beyond the trivial to see here. There does not appear to be an article on this company in either the French or the German Wikipedias. SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 19:20, 29 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep as it meets WP:SIGCOV. I checked a few sources through my university library; they are in-depth and meet WP:NCORP. We cannot dismiss a source just because it is behind a paywall and in foreign language. See WP:PAYWALL, which says Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access. Some reliable sources are not easily accessible. For example, an online source may require payment, and a print-only source may be available only through libraries. "Article on French or the German Wikipedia" is not a criterion either. 72.172.120.125 ( talk) 20:42, 29 December 2023 (UTC) reply
Which of the sources that you reviewed meet WP:NCORP? SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 17:58, 2 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk) 12:02, 5 January 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Keep. There is extensive coverage in the 2000 issue of Flanders magazine ( [9]), followed by further coverage in books titled Solutions!: For People, Processes and Paper ( [10]), Environmentally Friendly Production of Pulp and Paper ( [11]), Pulp & Paper Europe ( [12]), Wastewater Reuse and Current Challenges ( [13]), Water Recycling and Resource Recovery in Industry ( [14]), and so on. Geeraarts ( talk) 00:48, 9 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relising. I'd like to hear the opinions of some more experienced editors so I'm relisting the discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:08, 13 January 2024 (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.

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook