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 no consensus. A Train ^talk 10:20, 25 July 2017 (UTC) reply

Combimac

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

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

No evidence for any notability for this manufacturer of electric motors. They may be used in many different applications but that , of itself, does not equate to notability. Only two references, one of which is back to Wikipedia and the other a newspaper cutting. Searches reveal nothing that would count to notability - own web -site Linkedin, other Wikipedia articles etc. Fails WP:GNG   Velella   ^{Velella Talk}   14:20, 10 July 2017 (UTC) reply

Thanks you for your input. What would increase the notability? Compared to Wikipedia pages of other manufacturers and their history in our naval business, example Thales_Group or Schottel_(company), we do not spot genuine differences. We have a Linkedin site, would this help linking it to Wikipedia? -- Duc1199 ( talk) 15:02, 10 July 2017 (UTC) reply

@Duc1199, see WP:GNG and WP:CORP - particularly WP:CORPDEPTH. An organisation requires multiple in-depth sources which are completely independent of the company in question. Whether other companies have articles is irrelevant to whether this one is notable, but the ones you linked have independent sources listed and one is a Fortune 500 company. Combimac currently has far too few sources to support claims of notability, as the only ones provided are to a local paper covering a minor industrial dispute 45 years ago. Also, by use of the pronoun 'we' I assume you are editing while being connected to the company. This is strongly discouraged as to avoid potential conflicts of interest, and to keep Wikipedia free of advertising and promotional material. El Pharao ( talk) 16:07, 10 July 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 15:14, 10 July 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 15:14, 10 July 2017 (UTC) reply

• Thanks for the feed back and the link WP:CORP en WP:CORDEPTH. The information is clear and understood. We (a group of people gathering the information) just started and are trying to get adjusted with the do and don"ts on this platform. We will try to amend the information in line with the guidelines on organizations and companies. By the way: the dispute was not minor as it lasted more than 6 months and it became the longest in Dutch history. The union said they would put the company out of business and so they did. The attitude of the unions changed afterwards, as instead of saving jobs these were destroyed. The University of Groningen still provides the example as teaching material on unions. It became regular national news in the papers and television and the company was re-erected with help of the former Prime Minister.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Duc1199 ( talk • contribs) 07:40, 11 July 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.