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. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 14:29, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Andriessen Installatiebedrijf (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)

Non-notable company. Fails WP:GNG with no Google News search hits or Google News Archive hits. Also fails WP:CORP. There may be an issue finding references because of a language barrier. I didn't nominate this article for A7 because I think that the fact that it was founded over 100 years ago as an industrial installation company is a claim of importance. It's weak but a claim, in my opinion. OlYeller21^Talktome 12:35, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. GregJackP Boomer! 12:36, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. I had tagged it for speedy as advertising but the creator repeatedly removed the speedy tag. Unambiguous promotional page with no notability. Harry the Dog WOOF 19:46, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:44, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:45, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: poor spam by 2 SPAs.-- Dewritech (talk) 08:43, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Don't delete Please point out one way that this page is considered spam or unbiased and I will make any changes that you request. This is a completely legitimate page about an expanding company that does have outside references (see the articles's talk page). The company is very old, has many employees, and a large revenue. It warrants its own page for all of the above reasons. Sure, it's not going to get looked at 1000 times a day, but it is still an encyclopedic entity and deserves to be here if needed. It is no more delete-worthy than many other existing articles, for instance: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxijet. Wovermeer (talk) 10:21, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The issues with the article are covered at the top of this page. OlYeller21^Talktome 10:53, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hoi Wovermeer. What's needed to establish company notability is multiple significant mentions in reliable sources. For example this article about the new ice rink in Apeldoorn from De Stentor regional newspaper is a start, but it only mentions the company in passing. Industry magazine reports such as this one are sometimes ok, but need to be backed up by more reliable sources. I couldn't find any other mentions in dutch media, so it looks like notability has not yet been reached in thise case, sorry. -- Eclipsed (talk) (COI Declaration) 09:25, 19 June 2012 (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.