- 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. ( non-admin closure) NorthAmerica 1000 01:17, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Houghton International
- Houghton International ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
None of the items mentioned in the article (a couple of mentions in trade journals, and a nomination for a non-notable award) make this company notable per WP:CORP. NawlinWiki ( talk) 13:08, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
- Keep: I now have 4 quality independent sources linking directly to the organisation; The Journal (consumer media), AEMT the international trade association for Electrical and Mechanical trades (see pages 18-21), Intellectual Property Office (IPO) the United Kingdoms patent authorities recognition of innovation and intellectual property and the UK national Rail Business Awards 2013, a long standing annual awards event for the UK rail industry.
- In addition at NawlinWiki's request, I deleted the section about 'Products and Services' though I couldn't understand the reason why as it was a brief description of the products and services Houghton International provide. Also as requested I removed two regional business awards which were deemed non notable despite external references linking directly to the company.
- Since this page is being considered for deletion by NawlinWiki for being non notable, reviewing the article history I can see a number of amends have been made, specifically additional tags, cleanup, removal of duplication and delsort, however contributors have spent time and effort to improve the article which I am grateful for and have thanked. However they have made no reference regarding deletion. I assuming that as the contributors have spent time and effort approving my article, they are in agreement that my article meets the criteria.
- On a broader note, having looked at other articles there appears to be no consistency regarding the quality and quantity of references required. As a specific example of a company in a similar market sector, please see Sulzer, they detail 6 references: 1. Error, 2 and 3. Sulzer's Website, 4 and 5. No references to Sulzer i.e. no proof in content and 6. An individuals personal website, which may not meet WP:V?. None of which in my opinion meet the criteria.
- Given the above, I feel like I am being singled out unfairly despite making all the suggested amends.
- I would appreciate feedback on the points I have raised and welcome any further amends necessary.
- Regards,
- Cedric McMillan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cedric McMillan ( talk • contribs) 12:01, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp ( talk) 15:18, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp ( talk) 15:18, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp ( talk) 15:21, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
- Weak Keep -- I would like to hear more about the size of the company and its turnover. This may not be simple with a provate company. However it seems to operated in several fields and to have an overseas subsidiary. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:03, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica 1000 15:25, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
- Delete. The refs don't establish notability - I checked them all. It appears to be a modest engineering firm. Szzuk ( talk) 17:23, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr\ talk / 03:07, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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. ( non-admin closure) NorthAmerica 1000 01:17, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Houghton International
- Houghton International ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
None of the items mentioned in the article (a couple of mentions in trade journals, and a nomination for a non-notable award) make this company notable per WP:CORP. NawlinWiki ( talk) 13:08, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
- Keep: I now have 4 quality independent sources linking directly to the organisation; The Journal (consumer media), AEMT the international trade association for Electrical and Mechanical trades (see pages 18-21), Intellectual Property Office (IPO) the United Kingdoms patent authorities recognition of innovation and intellectual property and the UK national Rail Business Awards 2013, a long standing annual awards event for the UK rail industry.
- In addition at NawlinWiki's request, I deleted the section about 'Products and Services' though I couldn't understand the reason why as it was a brief description of the products and services Houghton International provide. Also as requested I removed two regional business awards which were deemed non notable despite external references linking directly to the company.
- Since this page is being considered for deletion by NawlinWiki for being non notable, reviewing the article history I can see a number of amends have been made, specifically additional tags, cleanup, removal of duplication and delsort, however contributors have spent time and effort to improve the article which I am grateful for and have thanked. However they have made no reference regarding deletion. I assuming that as the contributors have spent time and effort approving my article, they are in agreement that my article meets the criteria.
- On a broader note, having looked at other articles there appears to be no consistency regarding the quality and quantity of references required. As a specific example of a company in a similar market sector, please see Sulzer, they detail 6 references: 1. Error, 2 and 3. Sulzer's Website, 4 and 5. No references to Sulzer i.e. no proof in content and 6. An individuals personal website, which may not meet WP:V?. None of which in my opinion meet the criteria.
- Given the above, I feel like I am being singled out unfairly despite making all the suggested amends.
- I would appreciate feedback on the points I have raised and welcome any further amends necessary.
- Regards,
- Cedric McMillan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cedric McMillan ( talk • contribs) 12:01, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp ( talk) 15:18, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp ( talk) 15:18, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp ( talk) 15:21, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
- Weak Keep -- I would like to hear more about the size of the company and its turnover. This may not be simple with a provate company. However it seems to operated in several fields and to have an overseas subsidiary. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:03, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica 1000 15:25, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
- Delete. The refs don't establish notability - I checked them all. It appears to be a modest engineering firm. Szzuk ( talk) 17:23, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr\ talk / 03:07, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
- 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.