Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kudelski Group

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. —Tom Morris (talk) 23:28, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kudelski Group

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

No significant secondary sources found with web search. None cited in article. Highly promotional article probably should have been CSD-G11 when it was created. Fails WP:GNG. Company appears to make some notable products (Nagra undercover police recording technology as an example), but there is very little on the web for them other than mentions in passing. (Is this due to the secretive nature of their business?) Gtwfan52 (talk) 11:35, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Kudelski group is famous for 60 years for its Nagra Audio division which won several oscars for their contribution to high fidelity audio (see: http://www.allegrosound.com/Nagra.html for example). It's also one of the worldwide leaders in pay-tv systems, having among their customers Echostar, Canal Plus and other prestigious television groups. Yes, they are very secretive. But I fail to see why it could not have its page when a company such as Novartis (another big swiss company) has one (as do Echostar and Canal Plus by the way). But maybe we should ask Lord_Chao why he created this page first place. I doubt he has any relationship with the company and I doubt this page is even managed by the company. I agree that it may be a bit biased. --Eforler (talk) 14:03, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP: While it appears that it is difficult to find good online sources, it does appear that they have notable products and thus the company itself should be retained. While the page itself looks like it's spammy and an advertisement, I will boldly edit it back into something more resembling of a stub and removing the peacock elements. Tiggerjay (talk) 03:54, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley 01:14, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have recently had a relevant presentation from a subsidiary of the company pertaining to their and their parent company's operation. The information provided to me at that time is in accordance with the information provided.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Daemeonr (talk • contribs)

Keep and improve per Tiggerjay. I've edited it to remove the marketing fluff, and added detail on their subsidiaries. While notability isn't necessarily WP:INHERITED from its notable founder, CEO and subsidiaries, an article on the main company that pulls them together is pretty well essential to understanding the other articles. I also reckon that reliable sources will be found to improve the poor referencing. Altered Walter (talk) 10:09, 11 December 2012 (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.