Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/7layers

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 delete. The consensus is that there is a lack of independent, reliable sources to show that this company meets the criteria for inclusion. PhantomSteve/talk¦contribs\ 20:07, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

7layers

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

A directory-like listing on an unremarkable private company. Significant RS coverage not found; what comes up is routine announcements; passing mentions and / or WP:SPIP. Created by Special:Contributions/Janslovic with few other contributions. Does not meet WP:NCORP. Not independently notable of the parent company and appears too insignificant to be worth a redirect. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:35, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The 7layers entry complies with the notability guidelines. There has been significant coverage of the subject in reliable, indepedent third party sources, such as the German Focus Money (magazine) (a), the Financial Times (b), or the German Markt & Technik (c, e & f) and in literature (d)."

a) - Focus Money
b) - Financial Times
c) - Markt & Technik
d) Freie Fahrt für freie Maschinen : zur Ethik des vernetzen Autos coverage from Springer Publishing]
e) - Markt & Technik
f) - Markt und Technik

--Sailorway (talk) 19:55, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:40, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:40, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:43, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nom's comment: the above "keep" vote comes from a user who is being paid to edit the page (see User:Sailorway); they were also the one who moved the article from userspace into mainspace, bypassing WP:AFC. In any case, the sources offered above consist of passing mentions and routine notices such as "Aeroflex and 7Layers cooperate" and "7layers is expanding its EMV and ERM testing capabilities and has now opened a new absorber hall at its headquarters in Ratingen". Etc. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:44, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:ORG does meet minimum standards set in WP:ORG and have reliable news sources 1, 2, 3 but page need to be bit clean from neutral point of view. Rs7j (talk) 08:07, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

— Rs7j (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

- The test isn't for coverage in a "reliable news source" but for coverage that is independent (including being intellectually independent) - see WP:ORGIND. The references above fail the criteria since they are entirely based on company announcements and/or quotations/interviews with connected persons. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:08, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with nom. I am unable to locate any reference that meets the criteria for establishing notability, references are based on company announcements and fail WP:ORGIND. Topic therefore fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:08, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. My own searching failed to find WP:RS to meet WP:CORP. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:27, 29 October 2018 (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.