Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Affinia Group

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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 redirect to Mann+Hummel. There is consensus that this isn't a notable topic, but not consensus to delete outright. It's up to editors to determine whether they want to merge any sourced and relevant content from the history. Sandstein 19:46, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Affinia Group

edit

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

Affinia Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Everything in the article is the sort of content which would be of no interest to anyone not connected with the firm--I don't think this would be of interest even to its customers.Its sourced to mere announcements--even the 2 nyt itrms are just announcement of the sale of the firm DGG ( talk ) 00:36, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:45, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:12, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:13, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:13, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Based on the sources in the article, this seems to pass the WP:GNG - this is clearly significant coverage in reliable sources. The article could be improved, of course, but it seems relatively non-promotional and certainly notable to me. Ganesha811 (talk) 19:34, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Butthe rule for business firms is no longer the very weak GNG but WP:NCORP, which excludes articles whose referencing only covers acquisitions and funding. It was intended to removejust this type of article. DGG ( talk ) 02:13, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Except the coverage we have for this subject isn't limited to "acquisitions and funding". And the idea - clearly - is to require more substantive coverage than word-for-word reprints of press releases and mundane coverage of statutory announcements and statements that every company is required to make. That a company makes an announcement that then receives significant coverage in reliable sources, does not make that coverage routine, nor does it make that coverage not independent, nor does it make that coverage inappropriate for the purposes of WP:CORPDEPTH. But beyond all that, WP:NCORP isn't a "rule", and it doesn't supersede WP:GNG. Some people would like it to, but GNG is our baseline notability threshold. "It passes WP:GNG" is a perfectly valid argument. You're absolutely free to argue that the community should apply WP:NCORP instead (or ahead), of course. St★lwart111 09:27, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Except "significant coverage in reliable sources" is only half of the requirement, it must also contain "Independent Content" as per WP:ORGIND and when you strip out the information provided by the company and connected people, what's left says nothing. And when you say NCORP isn't a "rule" ... well neither is GNG, they're both guidelines with the same standing, GNG may be the "default" in the absence of a guideline for a specialty topic but even if you want to go down that road, there's the WP:SNG section found in GNG which explicitly explains why speciality guidelines exist in the first place and it doesn't say "Ignore them if you don't like them". They are just as much a part of our community-driven consensus-derived process and GNG. So if you're one of the NCORP haters and want to return to only having to refer to GNG, you'll also have to ignore that part of GNG which explicity mentions the strict significant coverage requirements spelled out in the SNG for organizations and companies. And for sure "It passes GNG" is a valid argument at AfD and has been used to great effect by a certain cabal of "Keep" !voters, but if you check their AfD stats you'll start to see their !voting stats are very poor - that is the company you will be keeping. While it is up to each closer to decide on which arguments to include, the least we (the experienced editors who are trying to improve the project) can do here is make sure we're arguing honestly with the guidelines in mind. If you don't like the NCORP guidelines - and it is clear you don't - then argue for change rather than pollute AfD with deliberate and disruptive avoidance of NCORP. HighKing++ 21:41, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Of course its independent; they didn't interview themselves. And arguments as to deletionist cabals running Wikipedia should be taken with a bucket of salt. We've seen attempts to apply WP:NCORP to all sorts of things of late (including sporting teams and geographic locations). That doesn't make it sensible. St★lwart111 05:17, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:59, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per commentary above and the extensive coverage available online (which is exactly what you would expect for a company with 10,000+ employees). The fact that executives of the company are are asked for their opinion of subjects completely unrelated to the company's primary business (like here in CIO (magazine)) suggests the company is notable among non-industry peers. Ironically, I think it probably passes WP:NCORP anyway, but it certainly passes WP:GNG. St★lwart111 09:27, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense. You've gone off the rails if you think a circular argument of "Oh, that company must be notable because their company executive was interviewed in a magazine because they surely only asked that executive's opinion because the company is notable". HighKing++ 21:32, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, the basis of our notability guidelines (all of them) is that something has been the subject of note by people beyond Wikipedia. All of our guidelines are different variations of tools to assess the extent of that note. Those that are not the subject of significant coverage in multiple independent sources are generally considered to have gone unnoticed, or to have made a contribution to their field that isn't worthy of note. As such, when something tries to promote itself, it isn't worthy of note, and hasn't been noticed by others; it has drawn attention to itself. When someone independent seeks information about a subject (even when they ask someone connected to the subject, because how else are they going to be sure the information is accurate?) they have taken note of the subject. We, in turn, reference a subject having received "significant coverage"; that is, the notice the subject has received is genuine and specific, and not just a passing glance (like when something is listed along with a bunch of other similar things or receives incidental routine coverage). When someone interviews someone about something (a perfectly normal journalistic practice, in fact, the very basis of modern journalistic practice) they are giving note to that something and have spent their own time and effort (independent of the subject) to find out more about that subject. The fact that they chose to ask an expert on that subject does not make them no longer independent, does not make the person they interviewed the "source" (which remains the journalist and publication), and does not make the coverage promotional. St★lwart111 05:17, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 11:58, 23 September 2021 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Affinia_Group&oldid=1047632177"