Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Componenta

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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:28, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Componenta

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I found the article a case of pure WP:PROMOTION but unable to come to a conclusion. The references also seems unreliable in nature. ~Amkgp ✉ 13:59, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ~Amkgp ✉ 13:59, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. ~Amkgp ✉ 13:59, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: @Kyykaarme and DGG: Help and request for independent review if interested. Thank you. ~Amkgp ✉ 14:07, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Componenta is a Nasdaq Helsinki company and most of the sources used in the article are external to the company. Try e.g. a Google search with Yle or Kauppalehti or Helsingin Sanomat and Componenta.Jjanhone (talk) 15:53, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: User:Jjanhone is the creator of the page. Your views are also welcome. Thank you. ~ Amkgp ✉ 07:02, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. the present article is historical , not promotional. Some of the wording is that sometimes used in promotional articles, and can easily be fixed, mostly by removal of adjectives. DGG ( talk ) 17:45, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. (Forgot to vote). Jjanhone (talk) 19:45, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:24, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets WP:NCORP, and WP:GNG, article contains multiple sources that reflect the notability of this company. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:32, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, sourced, notable, and agree with DGG on the historical/promotional perspective. /Julle (talk) 10:55, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.