Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BEHR Group Holdings


 * 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 delete. Delete all post-hijack revisions and restore original article to its intended location. Deletion or merge of that one is for a separate discussion. Favonian (talk) 19:40, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

BEHR Group Holdings

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No evidence of any notability. One ref is a project brief involving the company is the other is a dead-link unrecoverable through Wayback machine which would have attested to other US operations owned by the company's vice president. Even if available, this would not have conveyed any notability. Searches yield even less - facebook pages Linkedin pages and Vimeo pages but nothing of any substance  Velella  Velella Talk 19:30, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 19:31, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. North America1000 22:19, 1 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment: This was formerly an article on the German engineering firm Behr GmbH & Co. KG and part of the text and the references pertain to that firm. In a process begun with this edit in May and later with this move the article has been repurposed as one on a US financial firm BEHR Group Holdings. I am not seeing an association between the two firms and I am unclear why this was done? A newly-created article on BEHR Group Holdings would probably not survive CSD A7. Were it not for this AfD, I would suggest this should be reverted to the original title and revision as of 18:07, 3 March 2016; that said though, I am not sure the German firm is notable either (though it does have a German Wikipedia article).  thoughts on how to proceed at AfD on either/both firms? AllyD (talk) 09:28, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as proposed. The article's previous incarnation as the equivalent to de:Mahle Behr may or may not be a worthwhile subject on EN Wikipedia. but we do have Mahle GmbH, the English version of de:Mahle (Unternehmen), so interested editors can incorporate material relating to Mahle Behr there. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 10:37, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the research. If this is a hijack article then it should certainly be reverted to its original form and moved back again to the old name and re-evaluated there. I would be content for this AfD to be struck out in the event that the old article is restored. Regards  Velella  Velella Talk 10:51, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * An edit conflict has confused the time line of thread slightly, but the comment by Michael Bednarek looks to be the better way forward.  Velella  Velella Talk 10:53, 2 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete per Michael Bednarek. RA 0808  talkcontribs 20:12, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Revision Delete to point of hijacking and then rename to Behr GmbH & Co. KG. Then think about notability/merging ect of those two articles. Agathoclea (talk) 20:39, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

I am fully aware of BEHR Group Holdings and do not understand why it is requested to delete it. I was a former client of the firm and it has been around since 1999 and this AfD should remain as is, it is preposterous that you are making an arbitrary decision without looking at facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.29.40.219 (talk) 03:31, 3 October 2016 (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.