Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Metals Disintegrating Company

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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:00, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Metals Disintegrating Company (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)

A company with 72 employees, per the one reference, which makes powdered metal. Not clear that it satisfies WP:ORG. Edison (talk) 02:19, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep As the topic is documented in detail in other works such as Industrial Research Laboratories of the United States and The Story of New Jersey, it clearly satisfies WP:ORG. Andrew D. (talk) 22:36, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Please provide links to the sources you claim provide such "clear" proof of notability.Edison (talk) 04:11, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:36, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:16, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Everett Joel Hall; Wikipedia does not need two articles on essentially the same topic. Some results do come up in Google Books but it's mostly of "company catalog" type or mentions. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:08, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Per WP:NOTPAPER, "there is no practical limit to the number of topics Wikipedia can cover". In other words, there is no need to reduce the page count to stay within some arbitrary limit. Hall died in 1931 but the company he founded continued. There's more of a case for merger into the later companies which the company has since become but that complex history has yet to be written and so this stub is a placeholder for that work. I started this series of pages as a spin off from aluminium powder. That's still a stub too and that's because most editors are too busy working on pop culture and politics to work on basic industrial history. Trying to eliminate such stubs before they can grow is disruption. Andrew D. (talk) 11:46, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• If redirect target is not suitable, then delete, absent sources. I'm not seeing anything in Google books links, apart from catalog listings. For a long-standing company, something generally comes up. No sources, or extent of the coverage in them, have been presented at this AfD yet. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:51, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The coverage in sources meets the notability standard, a task made all the more challenging based on how far back the company was at its peak. Alansohn (talk) 02:13, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: It was the only reference I found to explain the significance of a souvenir medal issued by the company celebrating a silver anniversary 1930-1955 of the first manufacture if aluminum paste. It had been presented to E.C Whittacker. The article provides a useful link. FS Jones — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.114.181.175 (talk) 20:56, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:CORPDEPTH, only mentions-in-passing can be found. The source in the article is a catalogue of all metal producers and therefore is insufficient as per WP:RS -- HighKing⁺⁺ 15:01, 27 January 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.