Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BWD Electronics

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. T. Canens (talk) 10:52, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BWD Electronics

BWD Electronics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

This company doesn't meet WP:NCORP as far as I can tell. The references provided in this article are about the individual products cataloged here. The "history" section is completely un-referenced. Mikeblas (talk) 16:21, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 02:16, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 02:16, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Searching Trove returns only six useful-looking stories about this firm [1]. Given the era in which it operated includes that for which Trove provides good coverage, this strongly indicates that the firm is not notable. Nick-D (talk) 05:01, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but I might be persuaded otherwise. Direct references to this organisation are few and far between. However, searches seem to indicate that this company's products were and still are very widely used and respected. Also, searches by McVan Instruments also turn up references, potentially verifying relevant parts of the History section. While technically failing GNG and NCORP this organisation does appear to have very significant industry penetration and respect - perhaps just a quiet achiever. Aoziwe (talk) 11:33, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete We need refs not spam. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:29, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per
    WP:NOT we are not a product catalogue for the company in question. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:33, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]

• Delete both the trove and gnews search shows very limited coverage. LibStar (talk) 05:54, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as corporate spam / product listing; this content belongs on the company web site. Wikipedia is not a sales brochure /
  WP:CATALOG. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:11, 18 January 2017 (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.