Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AAON (2nd nomination)

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. Consensus for a particular action has not arisen within this discussion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:26, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AAON (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 -- only local references DGG ( talk ) 23:11, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:N.CerealKillerYum (talk) 00:34, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:13, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:13, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -- It's a $1B publicly traded company, so WP:LISTED applies. Online overage seems to be mostly local (Tulsa) + earning results, but reasonable for a regionally important company. The company was profiled in Fortune in the Fortune 40: The best stocks to retire on list and in TheStreet.com 's Top 5 Small-Cap Stocks.

I also located brief discussion of their strategy in Strategic Management: Concepts and Cases. This is a college textbook, so meets RS criteria. Here's some more: International Directory of Company Histories (1998), which seems reasonably in depth from what I can see. The company was mentioned in Business Week in 2001 link and 1994 link. It was discussed in another textbook Strategic management: a cross-functional approach.

So I think there's plenty there for expansion and improvement. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:45, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per WP:LISTED, and the advice given there about locating sources for listed companies. A quick search finds http://www.tulsaworld.com/business/tulsabusiness/business_news/local_business/biz-briefs-aaon-wins-at-dealer-design-awards/article_924ab073-9a90-5c27-971c-2b9813413958.html, and many others. Firkin Flying Fox (talk) 08:59, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Listed applies to NYSE not NASDAQ. A tulsa source for a Tulsa company is unreliable for notability -- especially in a section of the newspaper entitiled "Local business". I'd even say there putting it there proves lack of encyclopedic notability. DGG ( talk ) 16:16, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and I hope this can at least be relisted because I honestly disagree with these Keep votes, the coverage is still not to the levels of substance and convincing; the nomination analysis is exact with shoeing there's still noticeably localized coverage including of which consists expected business activities. SwisterTwister talk 17:24, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep mainly per K.e.coffman's argument and additional non-local sources provided above; as I noted in the first AfD this company and its predecessors have long been leaders in their industry, and I would like to see more content added about the corporate history going back to the John Zink Company. --Arxiloxos (talk) 19:03, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. WP:LISTED says "...listed on major stock exchanges such as the NYSE..." which NASDAQ is. There's coverage in BusinesWeek and then the local coverage, and to those who deprecate this as merely local, the Tulsa metro area has more people than Luxembourg or Iceland or Montenegro and is comparable to Estonia or Cyprus, and is an economic powerhouse to boot. It's local, but its not local to some podunk town. Tulsa is huge. 1400 employees, $1B company, major player: can we not find room for articles on entities like this among our D-List entertainers, video game characters, bar bands, ballplayers with 3 games played, and so forth. Herostratus (talk) 19:20, 23 August 2016 (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.