Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zwiesel Kristallglas AG

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 and cleanup (Non-administrator closing). --Tikiwont 12:03, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zwiesel Kristallglas AG (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

I originally prodded this article for failing WP:CORP link. The prod was removed later link. Since then the article has been improved but it still fails WP:CORP. It does seem to be a good translation of the de:Zwiesel Kristallglas AG article on it, however. It was created by someone under the same name as the company. ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk|Contribs) 10:37, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also bundling these two duplicate articles on one of their products:

Schott zwiesel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Schott Zwiesel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

If the vote is to keep, these two same articles should be merged with the company's article and deleted.

• Comment I am not very familiar with WP:CORP, but the quick google search I did found some press releases, claiming it is in the guiness book of records with over 500 million sold glasses[1], and that it's in the Top 100 of the most innovative companies of Germany, in the top ten in the category "innovation success", alledgedly the world market leader in crystal glass, and the biggest employer in the Bavarian Forest with 550 employees[2]. "Zwiesel Kristallglas AG" has 15,000 google hits[3] and has 114 products on the German amazon.[4] That said, I have never heard of this company. Still, I lean to keep, with the possibilities of tagging it with {{citations missing}} or stubifying it. – sgeureka ^t•c 15:54, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Press releases don't qualify as secondary sources criterion under WP:CORP because it is a WP:SPS. --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk|Contribs) 11:35, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I know, that's why I said "quick google search" and provided other references to suggest notability. Furthermore, if the press releases were completely made up, I doubt there were that widespread on German newspages. The are enough other website articles that suggest a big enough notability: finanznachrichten.de, glassglobal.com, pnp.de (Passauer Neue Presse), ostbayern-tourismus.de, niederbayernobenauf.com... nachrichten.com says 2000 people in and around the town of Zwiesel are employed in the glas industry, so this is a place where this article could be merged to. There are countless independant mentions of this company, and the more I am looking it up on google, the more I think a straight-out Keep is in order. – sgeureka ^t•c 12:20, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I guess enough notability is out there it just needs to be tagged or added to it to pass WP:V. Also seems to pass WP:NPOV to me. What do you think about the duplicate product articles? Shouldn't they at least be merged to the main article, according to WP:CORP. --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk|Contribs) 12:47, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Historic company--of course the two product articles should be merged in, but that doesnt need Afd. DGG (talk) 19:14, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Carlossuarez46 00:09, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - sources given above IMO enough to demonstrate notability of this in any case well-known company HeartofaDog (talk • contribs) 00:23, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - agree that the circumstances of creation might cause suspicion, but as has been mentioned this is an historic company that is undoubtedly significant. Obviously it needs to feel less like a translation from German, and could do with expansion of the Schott side of the business and the role in the Nazi war effort (one can understand why User:ZwieselKristall was less keen on these two aspects.....). Given how much Schott glassware is found in science labs, at least in Europe, it might be worth bringing this one to the attention of WP:CHEMISTRY and WP:MCB, they may well be able to expand it? FlagSteward 14:10, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Historic company with a long history and widespread current use within certain areas. Needs cleanup not afd.--Nick Y. 18:15, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I'm familiar with the Schott bottles I used as a chemist in the UK - they were the top-of-the-line in sample bottles. I've used hundreds. This is certainly a notable company, and the article does not read like an advert, it's pretty reasonable. Walkerma 03:10, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete while awaiting further information. Zweisel Kristalglas AG did not develop borosilicate glass, nor does it sell laboratory glassware [5]. The company which chemists seem to be referring to is Schott AG, see corporate website. These seem to be distinct companies, although both seem to hold certain rights to the "Schott" trademark (see Otto Schott for the glass technologist). At the very least, the article need to be cleaned up to make clear what this company actually does! (it is obviously an important German glass manufacturer) There may well be a notable story to be told here, but for the moment the article doesn't tell it. Physchim62 (talk) 12:59, 25 September 2007 (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.