Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jansen AG

Source: 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. Star Mississippi 00:55, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jansen AG (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)

DOesn't meet WP:ORG / WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 19:37, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if it's enough for WP:ORG, @Boleyn: what do you think? If the company has been around for 100 years, probably more can be found. Broc (talk) 11:04, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It would be nice to get a second review of these sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:50, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Broc's sources are both reliable and provide non-routine coverage of Jansen, for instance the two articles in St. Galler Tagblatt. Geschichte (talk) 16:08, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Have rewritten the article (NPOV) and added reliable secondary sources. As former resident of the Canton of St. Gallen, I know about the good reputation and the importance of Jansen AG for the Rheintal. However, I don't have any connection with this company.--BBCLCD (talk) 15:50, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "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. In plain English, this means that references cannot rely *only* on information provided by the company - such as articles that rely entirely on quotations, press releases, announcements, interviews, website information, etc - even when slightly modified. If it isn't *clearly* showing independent content then it fails ORGIND. Here, the references are simply regurgitating company announcements and have no "Independent Content" in the form of independent analysis/fact checking/opinion/etc. For example:
  • This and this is simple company registration information and company filings. All of the content has been provided by the company, this is not "Independent Content" as per the requirement above. Fails ORGIND.
  • This is about winning an award but this is not a notable award, it is a niche industry award. Fails ORGTRIV notability criteria. The article itself does not provide in-depth "Independent Content" about the company.
  • This in Tagblatt reports on some company restructuring. I am unable to read the entire article at this time, perhaps somebody can report on whether the content provides sufficient in-depth "Independent Content" about the company.
  • This in Rheintaler is based entirely on an announcement/Press Release and fails ORGIND
  • This in Rhein24 is a report on a party thrown to celebrate 100 years in business but it relies entirely on information provided by the company/execs/attendees, this is not "Independent Content" and fails ORGIND.
I've no doubt this company exists and is a well respected company in their field, but I am unable to locate any sources that meet our criteria for notability. HighKing++ 11:01, 23 July 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.