Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Camfil


 * 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) 17:43, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Camfil

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Reason Jscb (talk) 09:06, 3 July 2012 (UTC) This page is little more than an advertisement for a specific company and does not contain anything worthy of inclusion within an encyclopaedia. It does not list any sources and the information contained within it is unverifiable.Jscb (talk) 09:06, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. Fully agree that it is in need of improvement and in particular better referencing. The subject should however fulfill WP:CORP with no problems, and I completely disagree with the nominator's claims that it "does not contain anything worthy of inclusion within an encyclopaedia" (huh??? the probably largest company worldwide in its sector, with some 3000+ employees, although perhaps an "unsexy" industry) or that "it is unverifiable". Turnover figures, products, ownership, corporate history &c. of medium- and large-size companies are definitely verifiable. (BTW, my involvement with the article is only interwiki-linking, but I had heard about them before.) Tomas e (talk) 09:26, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2012 July 3.  Snotbot   t &bull; c &raquo;  09:28, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 13:32, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 13:32, 3 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - need of better references. not deletion.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:43, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep: article needs more refs; but company is notable.-- Dewritech (talk)  13:50, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * you haven't explained how a notability guideline is met. LibStar (talk) 14:37, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * take a closer look at GN and you'll find broad international coverage of the corp.-- Dewritech (talk)  08:53, 4 July 2012 (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.