Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cummins Allison


 * 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. &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  essay  // 01:55, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Cummins Allison

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Contested PROD. I had converted a Speedy deletion nomination into a Proposal for deletion, which was contested by the article creator with the reasoning "I think that this article demonstrates the notability of CA". I feel that the business notability criteria are not met, nor are the general criteria.
 * The references provided, whilst verifying the information in the article, are not sufficient to show the company's notability:
 * The first one is the company's own website - not independent;
 * Bloomsberg BusinessWeek: provides the company's own information, along with "standard announcements"
 * Crain's Chicago Business: confirms that the company is apparently the third most innovative in Chicago. This fails to meet the criteria for 2 reasons - firstly, it is a niche publication - it has a circulation of about 45,000 in the Chicago area, so is strictly local coverage; secondly, this would be more of a claim of notability (just...) if they were recognised in a national publication as being the 3rd most innovative company in the US or the World - but the 3rd most innovative in Chicago? Sorry, I do not feel that this shows the notability required for an entry in Wikipedia.
 * I also could not find suitable reliable sources which are independent of the company - they are basically either minor coverage, "standard announcements" or press releases.
 * In summary - while I appreciate the work put into this article by the creator, it does not meet the criteria for inclusion on this Wikipedia.  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 15:01, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 15:03, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions.  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 15:03, 4 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. I found nothing in the way of reliable sources that demonstrate notability and I agree with the nominator about the regional nature of what has been provided.  What I found was pretty much press releases and very local mentions.  Ubelowme U  Me  15:45, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. Being ranked the third most innovative company in Chicago certainly seems like it should make a company notable to me; however, I understand that the publication is somewhat small.  I have added a reference to the Wall Street Journal referring to CA as "the leading innovator and provider of coin and currency handling solutions." There's no doubt about the reliability of that publication. Dtm1234 (talk) 16:11, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * That WSJ article is just routine coverage of their press release and unhelpful in establishing notability. Msnicki (talk) 18:55, 4 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG.  Sources offered are either WP:PRIMARY or otherwise unsuitable.  Googling turned up nothing better.  Msnicki (talk) 18:55, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. Company has been in existence since 1887, employs hundreds in the United States, mostly in suburban Chicago but a few in their numerous regional offices. Hard to get information on the company from Google since they're kind of a niche business, and a privately-held company, but there is some news coverage, mostly of intellectual property cases. Thunderbunny (talk) 00:17, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * How long the company has existed is not a criteria for notability, nor how many people they employ (although I would assume that if that were hypothetically to be a criteria, the number required would be in the hundreds of thousands at last, not the hundreds!). The news coverage I found was routine announcements, nothing indepth about the company itself. Some niche subjects can be notable (they generate significant coverage at reliable independent sources because of their perceived importance or significance to the source) - but unfortunately this is not one of them, from what I can see.  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 09:43, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 22:48, 11 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep The company meets the GNG and WP:ORG is therefore notable as shown by this 1978 article from Computer World, this 1997 article from the Daily Herald, this 1995 article form the Boston Globe, this 1979 article form the Chicago Tribune, this 2003 interview in Manufacturing & Technology News, this 2009 article from Vending Times, this 1992 article in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinal and on and on and on.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  03:46, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The Computer World one looks to me to be based on a press release from the company; Unfortunately I can't see the Daily Herald/Boston Globe/Chicago Tribune ones as they are behind a paywall, so I can't verify their content (hopefully others will have a paid-for subscription so can look at them); the Manufacturing & Technology News one is an interview with Bill Jones, the company's CEO - so not independent; the Vending Times one is based on a press release and/or quotes from a company representative; and the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel is behind a paywall. What I can see of these sources do not appear to show independent ones - not all coverage in reliable sources is necessarily independent. I am open for persuasion though. Some good research though - I had found the M&TN one, but missed the Vending Times one.  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 01:20, 13 July 2012 (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.