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 keep. The article still needs a lot of work, but AfD is not for cleanup. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:11, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Crouzet[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

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

Article appears purely promotional in nature and not consistent with NPOV. In addition I have conflict of interest concerns in respect of the similarity between the company name and the creating user account. Crispmuncher (talk) 16:32, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. NPOV and COI problems can be rectified through careful editing. I'd say the bigger problem here is the lack of any references. Even with independent sources I don't think this would pass WP:CORP. Several Times (talk) 17:02, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I'm really a fan of Crouzet products. Please let me know the part that you find inappropriate. Best Regards, Greg — Preceding unsigned comment added by GrégoryHBK (talk • contribs) 17:14, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The big problem is that the article is not cited to secondary sources that discuss the company in detail. That's a requirement on Wikipedia. Also, passages such as "Widely recognized for over 50 years as the specialist in el ectromechanical, electronic technology and software engineering, Crouzet's experience in time management, physical and mechanical values has resulted in an extensive automation components" make it seem like the article is trying to talk people into buying their products, which is also a problem. See WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:NPOV for more. My hunch is that this might actually pass WP:CORP but would need some serious cleanup to be kept. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:58, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 21:31, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 21:31, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit it with a chainsaw and KEEP. At 90 years old and 1300 employees, they certainly could meet wp:notability, and substantive encyclopedic material is likely in their diverse product areas and history. But the material sounds like their internal literature, and it has no real references. Looks like this is due to a green green editor and a just-created article rather than blatant advertising. North8000 (talk) 00:24, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've been looking for this company since a while my grand parent use to have Crouzet things that are still running.

Text is alright but will be better with more references.(Nicom69) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicom69 (talk • contribs) 10:04, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just to point out that Nicom69, along with GrégoryHBK, is a newly registered user with no other editing activity. Crispmuncher (talk) 13:15, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've cleaned it, hope this version fits your expectations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.53.77.124 (talk) 21:42, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The above is the only edit made by the anon, no edits made to the article under this address. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:44, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note - On the topic of chainsawing, I've removed the history section as it was a copyvio. -- Whpq (talk) 16:40, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It's a dreadful article, although a little less so now. But the company appears to be significant in the sensor industry. There is coverage about one of their products here. As part of Sextant Avionique, they sell through the aircraft industry [1]. Specialised sensors for naval use are documented here, and here. -- Whpq (talk) 16:49, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Stub and keep per Whpq. A very specialized business, but they seem to have been around enough to have some significance in the history of their field. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 20:31, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and restore history, this company looks mature — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.49.149.243 (talk) 20:13, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:30, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and cleanup.--Breawycker public (talk) main account (talk) 14:41, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Blatant advertising and non compliance with NPOV, unless this gets a drastic re-write, soon.Petebutt (talk) 05:44, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per sources cited above by user:Whpq. Topic appears to pass notability guidelines. Northamerica1000 (talk) 01:13, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Northamerica1000 has done a lot of work on the article, it fine now. Sources have been found. Dream Focus 12:40, 12 October 2011 (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.