Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Samsung Electro-Mechanics


 * 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   merge to Samsung Group. Selectively, only the first paragraph Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 08:44, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Samsung Electro-Mechanics

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Possibly vandalized by an IP editor, since the “Global Network” network is not encyclopedic (per WP:NOT and NOTDIR), and the products section is jargon, the history section and the leading section looks like spam. It was a redirect to Samsung. Actually only the first paragraph, IMO, is encyclopedic. Open to more opinions. Lakokat ( Drop me a line ) 14:16, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:49, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Merge first paragraph with Samsung Group and delete. This is Samsung's manufacturing division that apparently makes capacitors, resistors, and similar deeliebobbers.  We don't need a product list, an unreferenced company history, phone numbers for their plants, or promotional patent nonsense like this: Samsung Electro-Mechanics is a technology-driven company and, through our Inside Edge program, we are focusing on developing state-of-the-art technology and parts. We plan to expand into promising new businesses such as energy industry,biotechnology, electronic vehicles, and ubiquitous sensor networks. Higher profit bases are being established as we expand high-end products and enhance cost competitiveness. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:49, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Selective merge with Samsung Group (only the encyclopedic content from the first paragraph. I think that a redirect will suffice, as it will perform a useful function for readers. It may be the case the this particular division is notable in itself (I don't know), but it would require a fundamental rewrite. If someone wants to write a neutral article later on, they can. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 15:52, 14 February 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.