Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beckhoff group

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. The one "keep" comment has little weight because Google searches and business directories are not considered significant coverage to establish notability. RL0919 (talk) 17:10, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Beckhoff group

[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)

Doesn't meet WP:NCORP Cabayi (talk) 17:13, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 17:14, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 17:14, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails NCORP and certainly WP:SIGCOV. JC7V (talk) 18:05, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article should not be deleted for lack of asserted importance because it is a major player in machine automation. [1]

Google search for "beckhoff automation" gives > 570.000 results [2] , search for B. and IoT > 180.000 [3] search for Beckhoff and Industry 4.0 well over 50.000 "industry+4.0" . [4] and [5] list as competitors FlexSim and Omron. [6] lists Beckhoff among such reputable companies as Bosch Rexroth, Sick_AG, Festo, Rockwell Automation, etc.. Anyone pretending he hasn't come across Beckhoff in the context in Europe would probably be derided. I'll leave it to the readers of my comment to muse about my impression. -- Kku (talk) 17:00, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:42, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 01:05, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No in-depth independent coverage. A company may have widely-used products, and be mentioned in many trade publications, but in the absence of independent sources discussing the company itself directly in detail then it is not notable for the purpose of inclusion in this encyclopedia.--Pontificalibus 09:45, 27 December 2018 (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.