Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eng Leong Medallic Industries


 * 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.  Sandstein  09:35, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Eng Leong Medallic Industries

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

A small medal-making/gift company in Singapore. I can't find the slightest trace of notability or even assertion of notability, nor anything even resembling a reliable source. Calton | Talk 10:01, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * delete This might make an article if (like the UK medal ribbon weaver whose name I've forgotten -- "Toye, Kenning and Spencer", 300 years old) they had a particularly long history. As it is though, they have neither status today, nor length of history, to swing it. Viam Ferream (talk) 12:51, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions.  sst  ✈  14:26, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions.  sst  ✈  14:26, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Consensus leaning towards delete; however, sources presented here may point at notability. Editors with access to a broad array of resources are encouraged to participate. Esquivalience  t 05:00, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment. I see some coverage in reliable sources:  from Today,  from Channel NewsAsia, and I think there's some more in-depth coverage from  The Straits Times archived here by Singapore's National Library.  If you search that page for "medallic", it shows a few hits from archived newspaper articles.  I'm not sure if you can actually read them from that site, though, because I couldn't get it to work.  I'd be curious to see what others think of these articles.  I know it's not a lot, but I think there might be more offline sources if I found this much archived online. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:11, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete at best perhaps and draft & userfy and restart when better as the article is still questionably notable and improvable. SwisterTwister   talk  05:44, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Esquivalience  t 05:00, 30 January 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep: ...but delete promotionalism as required. The company has six additional examples of significant coverage at the bottom http://elm.com.sg/news-updates/. (Viam Ferream, given that Singapore became an independent republic in 1965 and the company was founded in 1968, their history (now almost 50 years) should be considered long enough in that context). undefinedHydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)  06:59, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — UY Scuti Talk  19:23, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. I'm generally skeptical of claims of sourcing at official websites (it's often exaggerated), but these sources are readable.  And I'm pretty sure that there are additional sources archived at Singapore's National Library.  There does seem to be sufficient sourcing to keep this. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:06, 9 February 2016 (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.