Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anthon Berg


 * 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. Now please go find and add those sources, or this will be back at AfD and righteously. The Bushranger One ping only 03:44, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Anthon Berg

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Inadequate references for notability: in order: being used as an example in a book about something else, a listing in a directory, an advertorial in an Indian newspaper, and two pages from the company website.  DGG ( talk ) 13:52, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:54, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:54, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:54, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:54, 3 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment, but hang on, they make those yummy little chocolate bottles .... mmmmmm chocolate and liqueurs:)) Coolabahapple (talk) 21:58, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment, drat! although the danishwp has had an article for over 10 years, it is unreferenced. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:11, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - AfD is not cleanup, the nomination looks like a tag. Further, google books and google scholar searches give many results. Some of these results are textbooks using Berg in case studies in law, finance, and economics - these seem like very reliable sources to me. If no one else does, I'll try to add some of these in the next few days. Smmurphy(Talk) 14:38, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep -- EXcept in BLP cases, the absence or dearth of references is not a ground for deletion. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:03, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - it is a very well-known brand and plenty of sources can be found.Ramblersen (talk) 18:25, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep -- EXcept in BLP cases, the absence or dearth of references is not a ground for deletion. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:03, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - it is a very well-known brand and plenty of sources can be found.Ramblersen (talk) 18:25, 9 November 2017 (UTC)


 * 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.