Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Highlight 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   delete.   A rbitrarily 0   ( talk ) 21:07, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Highlight Industries

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

There don't seem to be any independent, non-trivial sources on this company. I've looked, but the best that there seem to be are things like expo sites and business directories that list their address and sometimes reprint the company-written profile of what it is that they do. As such, it seems that this fails WP:CORP and the general notability guideline. MrOllie (talk) 15:07, 16 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep: Highlight Industries shows up in multiple books, articles and several patents. Imsquare22 (talk) 15:50, 16 July 2010 (UTC) — Imsquare22 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete. The name 'Highlight Industries' may show up in books, but the reference is usually to a fictional company which exists only in the book's narrative setting. The phrase 'highlight industries' also shows up in many articles, but used as a verb and a noun, not a proper noun. Lots of companies have patents. That fact that a company has a patent does not make the company notable.Mtiffany71 (talk) 18:35, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: Most books/articles that contain "highlight industries" are not talking about this company, however there are those among them that are talking about it. Imsquare22 (talk) 20:23, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete no reliable sources. Small, unremarkable company doesn't meet notability criteria. --Biker Biker (talk) 21:10, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete I tagged it for improvement of refs a few days ago - they haven't. Possibly they can't. If they can, please tell us - and show us. Otherwise, it's a company doing its job. They're in a tough field, and I wish them luck - and a return here when the refs turn up. Peridon (talk) 21:39, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: Added article and book in which highlight is noted/discussed. Imsquare22 (talk) 18:33, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:53, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep: This is a legitimate article.   Progress has been made for it to fit WK format and standards. References are in place.   Please keep this article.  Rlsheehan (talk) 13:57, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The references appear to be trivial mentions. - MrOllie (talk) 14:34, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per MrOllie; non-notable. Wizard191 (talk) 16:44, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh please! Your user page indicates that you work for ITW Signode: you are in competition with Highlight, and also  your company does have a WK article.  Be careful about conflict of interest.  Rlsheehan (talk) 16:59, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Rlsheehan is correct that I work for a competitor of Highlight Industries (however, I must say I have never heard of them because they are such a small outfit). Although you are incorrect, Signode/Signode Engineered Products (SEP) doesn't have a WP article; ITW does, but they are merely a holding company that owns SEP. If others deem my !vote as a COI then please disregard it. Wizard191 (talk) 17:39, 20 July 2010 (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.