Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DyStar

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. ✗plicit 23:47, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DyStar

[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)

PROD declined (courtesy @Phil Bridger:) on the grounds of potential sources. However my review of those sources indicated some name drops, press releases and run of the mill announcements of acquisitions, nothing independent or in depth. The German article doesn't appear to have much more of substance from which to build an article. Star Mississippi 19:27, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 19:27, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 19:27, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 19:27, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 19:27, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep : this company seems notable to keep. A major company in textile industry. I have found 2 new book sources and there are plenty more news coverage on them. Check [1] and [2].Jaxarnolds (talk) 02:40, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:52, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

When contesting WP:PROD deletion I said that many potential sources are found by searches of books and academic papers. I believe that many found here and here cannot be classified as "name drops, press releases and run of the mill announcements of acquisitions". Phil Bridger (talk) 23:26, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources provided above. Fieari (talk) 23:57, 23 December 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.