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 Move to Draft:Durable (company) and redirect to Durability.. Durable (company) seems more better because Durable is ambiguous and has competition with the accepted dictionary meaning, and moving to draft will enable Baptx have more time to work on the article. (non-admin closure) Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 11:10, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Durable[edit]

Durable (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)

Contested PROD. From my PROD statement: I doubt the topic is notable and I was unable to find any sources that could contribute to it meeting the WP:GNG or WP:NCORP, including the sources on the German Wikipedia. The contesting editor (User:Baptx) added some better non-company-affiliated sources to the article, but I found that [1] is not significant coverage, only giving two sentences' mention. The other one, [2], is paywalled but even if its content is independent (see WP:ORGIND), I doubt it has significant coverage especially if it is like this non-paywalled article on the same event. Notability is not inherited, and an article that primarily discusses an executive staffing change likely does not give enough WP:CORPDEPTH to its coverage about the company itself.

Due to the page name that the article is at, I think that the page should become a redirect to Durability (adjective-to-noun redirect) again. —Danre98^{(talk^contribs)} 17:19, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Germany. —Danre98^{(talk^contribs)} 17:19, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I thought it would be best to respond to the concerns that article creator User:Baptx had about the deletion here. Sources must be independent, reliable, give significant coverage of the subject, and should be secondary sources to contribute to the topic meeting the WP:GNG (or WP:NCORP, which offers more guidance). Though the sources added are secondary, in my judgment both are trivial coverage. Though it does have a page on the German Wikipedia, that doesn't necessarily make it worthy of an article on the English Wikipedia, especially as how I think that the sources there are deficient. I did try to find sources myself before PRODing the article, but I didn't find any good sources (it also doesn't help that I can't read German and must rely on translation). (The article has also been problematic for years; it hasn't had a single independent source since it was created until today) —Danre98^{(talk^contribs)} 17:31, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Instead of the paywalled article, we can use another one like https://www.highlight-web.de/6059/durable-rolf-schifferens/ which shows that the company is notable enough in Germany to have an article on its own, in addition to being visited by a prime minister in the article https://www.welt.de/regionales/mecklenburg-vorpommern/article239508845/Schwesig-besucht-Polen-Stettin-als-Entwicklungsmotor.html. I don't see a problem with the article page name because there is a link to Durability article. But if necessary, it is still possible to change the name to "Durable (company)" and create a disambiguation page "Durable". For other advantages of keeping the article, I wrote about it in the talk page of the article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Durable#Secondary_sources. Baptx (talk) 16:18, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The highlight-web article does not give any notability because it (1) is a routine coverage of the arrival/departure of personnel (listed as an example of trivial coverage at Wikipedia:CORPDEPTH) and does not give significant coverage of the company itself. (2) It is also not independent of the company with the content coming directly from a press release. A visit by a prime minister also doesn't contribute to notability because of how little coverage that visit generated (not significant coverage). It's not so much a question of "does this deserve an article" as it is "does adequate sourcing exist that could be used to make an article? If not, then the topic should not have an article".
  • I mentioned the page name because I wanted to indicate that I think the article should be pseudodeleted; I'd rather not talk about disambiguation or moving the page unless there is a consensus to keep the article. —Danre98^{(talk^contribs)} 20:39, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, I should probably address how much having an article benefits the reader. I don't think it benefits the reader as currently written because it only gives a short description about what the company makes, which anyone that wants to look up the company probably already knows. In addition, sourcing doesn't exist that lets the article be larger than a few probably-meaningless sentences (i.e. Durable was visited by a politician on [date]) while also not being promotional and not relying on what the company says about itself for sources. There simply isn't good information to use to write a useful article on the company. —Danre98^{(talk^contribs)} 21:10, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • The English article can be improved by translating contributions from the German article. For information, a request to delete the German article was already made and rejected: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:L%C3%B6schkandidaten/31._Januar_2008#Durable_(erl.,_bleibt). --Baptx (talk) 21:15, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • The dewiki request to delete the article should have no bearing on this discussion because (1) the discussion occured in 2008, and community opinions on what should and shouldn't be in Wikipedia, among other things, have probably shifted since then and (2) the deletion discussion occured on another wiki; the German Wikipedia has different policies than this wiki. Dewiki (link to policy: de:WP:RKU), considers any buisness with over 1000 employees or a profit(?) of 100k euros to be notable. That is not true on the English Wikipedia. That (along with business tradition) is why it was kept; that policy doesn't apply here. As to information from there improving the current english wikipedia article, I find that unlikely given that most of the material seems to be sourced from the company itself.
      • I did find a book source that was added around the time of the AfD [3] that seems to have been removed in a 2010 edit war. That book, unfortunately, is not independent of the company because it is authored/published/whatever by the German Marketing Organization and, in my mind, is closely affiliated with the company. It otherwise seems to be good quality. —Danre98^{(talk^contribs)} 03:32, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:24, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Move to Draft:Durable (company) and redirect title to Durability. This company is not the primary topic, even if it is notable, which I doubt. BD2412 T 22:53, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Moving to Durable (company) without draft should be fine also, so the interlanguage links will still work and people from the German Wikipedia will find the English article more easily if they want to contribute. Also drafts are automatically deleted after some time so the article could lose all contributions history. Baptx (talk) 18:05, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Moving it to Durable (company) would mean keeping the article, which I am opposed to given my concerns above (primarily poor available sourcing and a lack of information to provide to readers, resulting in deficient notability). —Danre98^{(talk^contribs)} 02:01, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support move, rename, and redirect per BD2412. As per Nom there is no indication of notability (also noting ambiguity) for a stand alone page. A stub-class article needs to have at least some "rudimentary information about a subject", certainly more than a "dictionary entry". "Durable" is ambiguous and has competition with the accepted dictionary meaning: "able to withstand wear, pressure, or damage; hard-wearing." While entries from other editions of Wikipedia is certainly sought it does not mean coverage in another language gives an automatic pass (WP:NOTINHERITED) for inclusion in this encyclopedia. -- Otr500 (talk) 15:32, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm okay with draftification, partly because Baptx might want plenty of time to incubate the article. However, if Baptx doesn't have interest in improving the article in draftspace, then I don't think draftification is much different than outright redirection (which is fine). —Danre98^{(talk^contribs)} 17:39, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Baptx: (sorry but I don't Twitter) The article is listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Germany#Article alerts and I am sure there is a place on the German Wikipedia to advertise a need for help. A problem on this encyclopedia is that primary and press release sources do not contribute to notability. If being moved to draft, as an ATD, is seen as a possible temporary reprieve, that is better than the obvious policy given direction that it can be deleted as not notable. If nobody decides to contribute then it is possible there simply is a lack of notability. -- Otr500 (talk) 23:45, 2 August 2022 (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.