Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hines 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. BigDom  talk  17:07, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Hines Industries

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Company operating in a very specialised field of very little interest to the general public. No evidence of notability. &mdash; RHaworth 14:29, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Article offers little in the way of asserting notability and, although copyright issues have been resolved via an OTRS ticket, the use of material from the company's website is overly promotional. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 16:00, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete the existing references do not establish notability. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:39, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep the existing references establish notability because Hines Industries has 17 patents and is mentioned in books because of their relevance to the field of balancing. Hines Industries' employees author articles in manufacturing periodicals such as Pumps & Systems again because of their notability in the field. The content has been edited since the comment was first posted and all marketing phrasing has been removed. Please read the current content. This page is very similar to American Hofmann.  So if Hines Industries should be removed, so should this page. --Christine Hines (talk) 16:56:01, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * FYI, I have put a Proposed Deletion tag on the article American Hofmann, its second such tag. They do indeed appear to be similar to your company, though I was able to find a few more sources of potential notability, hence, I am mulling proceeding to this step (Articles for Deletion) if PROD template is removed. Thanks for the "heads up." --Quartermaster (talk) 17:57, 24 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions.  Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:24, 24 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. Obvious problematic conflict of interest in this article - company's CEO is Dawn Hines, secretary is Mavis Hines and the primary editor is Christine Hines. Claiming page is similar to American Hofmann is irrelevant, but thanks for the heads up on that - wikipedia has way too many vanity/spam articles so I'll be looking at that one also. A search of the database Business and Company Resource Center turns up a directory listing only - no articles, no rankings. This is a privately held, small firm of 50 employees. Annual sales is estimated at 6.5 million dollars. Search of the ABI/Inform database = zero hits. Search of Lexis-Nexis Academic database using phrase "Hines Industries" in ALL NEWS turns up 2 hits, one two line "story" mentioning a new VP for Hines Industries was hired, the other a two paragraph press release (Product News Network) mentioning the release of a new product (The Eliminator-10 small parts balancer). No other articles indicating any notability about the firm. It's been around since 1979 so I think this is a small shop, currently doing well, but otherwise not wikipedia notable. --Quartermaster (talk) 17:45, 24 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete per Quartermaster. If additional references from third-party publications can be found, of course, to establish notability, this would be a keep despite the WP:COI.  Comet Tuttle (talk) 20:00, 24 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete, notability per WP:CORP not indicated in reliable sources, does not have coverage to meet WP:GNG. -- Kinu t /c  02:00, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. This business makes balancing machines. Owning patents is well and good, but unless those patents have some sort of recognition as important technical developments from disinterested third party sources, they don't really establish notability for a business.  GNews hits are very scanty, not even that many press releases.  GBooks contains some incidental mentions ("I used one when I built a hot rod", essentially) but the rest are directory listings.  GScholar draws a blank.  I don't see significant impact on history, technology, or culture here. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:34, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Although there are "references" they do nothing in the way of establishing notability, not showing any overall significance to the cooperation. Jay-Sebastos (talk) 07:06, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Firstly, please don't forget to only vote once. It may not have been your intention, but repeatedly adding "keep" when you have a comment might well give the impression that there are many different people saying "keep". Secondly, American Hofmann is also being considered for deletion; the reason it was not before was purely because nobody had come across it, or at least considered its notability before. Thirdly, an article is not notable enough merely because it has a vague connection with another article - it has to be notable in its own right: see WP:ORG. So although the Eiffel Tower satisfies WP:N in its own right, the manufacturer of the pig iron that built it does not simply because of its connection with the Eiffel Tower. For an article to be notable enough, it must have significant, secondary source coverage which helps to explain its importance. Unfortunately this company has no such coverage and therefore fails WP:ORG. It has nothing to do with which company is the most wealthy in the industry. A big, organization with no significant, secondary source coverage would not merit its own article, whilst a smaller organization that was particular famous for one reason or another might. Jay-Sebastos (talk) 20:54, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 *   OK, so pig iron can be in Wikipedia, but not the manufacturers even if a manufacturer developed many of the technologies on which todays manufacturing techniques are based. Got it. --Christine Hines (talk) 16:56:01, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Exactly. And frankly, we'd love to have experts improving the article on balancing machines, even if individual businesses making them are not general encyclopedia subjects.  The current article on the machines is slightly confusing.  The biography of Gordon E. Hines also seems worthwhile, and anything with historical significance probably belongs there. (There may be a copyright issue with that article currently.   - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 22:14, 26 February 2011 (UTC)


 * And I'll even throw in that if Hines Industries does not meet Wikipedia notability criteria now, it might do so at some time in the future. If it becomes the zaibatsu of balancing machine companies, or a member of the Fortune 500 or the subject of something independently notable, an article would be deserved. Understand, those of us editing and looking at such things aren't motivated to delete articles about companies for no reason, and we are sensitized to the fact that a lot of such articles are blatant attempts at spam. I'm getting the feeling that this is not the case here, but try and understand the context of such discussions. And, you know, if you can turn up New York Times or Business Week articles on how important your company is, most of us here would gladly withdraw our delete recommendations (not votes). We're trying to build an encyclopedia, not attack companies for no reason. --Quartermaster (talk) 00:07, 27 February 2011 (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.