Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beijer Electronics

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. Tone 20:37, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Beijer Electronics (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)

Promotion (advertisment) SharabSalam (talk) 20:14, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep First of all "promotion" is not a valid reason for deletion, problems should be fixed instead of deleted. Second, the company clearly reaches WP:GNG. Here are the articles mentioning the company in Dagens industri, articles in Affärsvärlden, a stock analysis in Svenska Dagbladet, articles in Sydsvenskan and some in Veckans Affärer, all of them respected publications in Sweden and reliable sources. Sjö (talk) 11:15, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Well... when I firstly found the article and searched in google, all sources I found were from the company itself. I thought that the company isnt notable and fails significant coverage and that the article in wikipedia was a free advertisment for the company. I will wait for more editors to comment on this.-SharabSalam (talk) 12:43, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:53, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:54, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:21, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I've got rid of some of the worst promotional language. Agree with Sjö regarding notability. /Julle (talk) 11:34, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Good job by Sjö on finding all those sources, several of which appear to meet CORPDEPTH. I'd say this passes NCORP quite easily, it should be possible to address any PROMO issues with the article. GirthSummit _(blether) 11:35, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - per improvements made since nom.BabbaQ (talk) 23:11, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - The company appears to be notable and there are lots of links available. Agree with Sjö's comment. Legion X (talk) 19:44, 1 March 2019 (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.