Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Teknikmagasinet AB


 * 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. (non-admin closure) &mdash; neuro  (talk)  18:40, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Teknikmagasinet AB

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Lacks reliable sources. —  Aitias  // discussion 13:27, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep article is currently very badly writen, I'd even say it reads like a bad advertisement, but it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources.
 * The company is mentioned on many business and financial sites, incluing the English businessweek.com, 3i.com and linkid.com. It has recieved even more coverage in Nordic sites such as balticnordic.com and magnushjelm.com.
 * It certainly needs to be cleaned up. Patton t / c 13:38, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep and add sources. At this size its notable; as a corporation there are at least primary sources for the basics. DGG (talk) 14:38, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions.   --  brew  crewer  (yada, yada) 18:00, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions.   --  brew  crewer  (yada, yada) 18:00, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions.   --  brew  crewer  (yada, yada) 18:00, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.   --  brew  crewer  (yada, yada) 18:01, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep with 80 retail outlets, the company is certainly notable. Also, a news search with Sesam (Norwegian) finds 16 hits, so they sufficient media coverage too. Of course, the article is in desperate need of a copyedit. Arsenikk (talk)  22:13, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep notable company. travb (talk) 22:32, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per the above comments. Have tidied the article up a little and added a couple of sources. Gr1st (talk) 22:33, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep a notable company. The Rolling Camel (talk) 12:40, 11 January 2009 (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.