Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Recaro Aircraft Seating

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 slight merge and redirect to the existing Recaro#Airliner seats . Discussion participants correctly point out that the current set of references are insufficient to show independent notability. Most would be unusable even if the section was merged elsewhere. The one reasonably well-sourced sentence is therefore merged. Note, however, that the Recaro article is itself a mess of unsourced claims. bd2412 T 14:24, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Recaro Aircraft Seating (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

34 out the 40 refs are primary sources. Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:ORGIND. scope_creep (talk) 11:59, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not arguing for keep, but telling me 34 out of the 40 refs are primary is not helpful. The significant thing is what is in the other six? SpinningSpark 12:43, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:51, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:52, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Hi Spinning, not just primary, but to the own companies site. Even with the other 6, it has zero coverage. Have you had a look at the references? scope_creep (talk) 13:30, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is actually 38 references to their own site. scope_creep (talk) 13:33, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - advertising/promotional, lack of RS. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 21:09, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Hi scope_creep, you’re right. There were a lot of sources pointing back to their company website. A majority of those sources as well as any other promotional mentions have since been addressed. Now, the article has 16 references with 11 pointing at outside industry and local media sources. Anitab02 (talk) 16:04, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment

• Ref 1 is primary and point a page which states increased production by 15%, which is promotional and asserts WP:NOTADVERTISING. Also text from a press release, and is Non RS.
• Ref 2 is the same, increased production by 15%, which is promotional and asserts WP:NOTADVERTISING. It is also a press release and Non RS.
• Ref 3 is primary and cant be used to establish notability. It is also a press release and Non RS.
• Ref 4 is another promotion page, discussion sales, order book and is promotional and asserts WP:NOTADVERTISING.
• Ref 5 is slightly better, but not much to establish notability, which it should be notable.
• Ref 6 is dead and primary from the url cant be used to establish notability.
• Ref 7 is primary
• Ref 8 is a press release and is Non RS.
• Ref 9 is a press release and is Non RS.

Absolutely terrible referencing. scope_creep (talk) 12:46, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• References seem ok for now Allstar83 (talk) 11:24, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Allstar83, You would say that. The references are terrible and you seem to not know what you are talking about. scope_creep (talk) 11:38, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• scope_creep Have you reviewed references lately? They are fine. bbjoe15(talk) 3:56, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

• Merge with Recaro. feminist (talk) 08:11, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment If suitable references can found, I dont mind a merge. But not using the current reference set. scope_creep (talk) 12:29, 25 November 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.