Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Material Sciences Corporation


 * 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. slakr \ talk / 07:58, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Material Sciences Corporation

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

no evidence for notability. Previously Prodded and restored for improvement, but no substant improvement has taken place--proesumably because there are no sufficient sources.  DGG ( talk ) 05:06, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 08:22, 16 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete: I agree with both the previous WP:PROD rationales. This is a poorly-sourced article on a company which was previously public but was acquired in early 2014 . There is mention of the name in subsequent ongoing consolidations but I am seeing nothing beyond routine announcements. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 08:46, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep This is a former publicly traded company, which gives it permanent notability. Even if it had since gone out of business, it would deserve a page. The article should notice the privatization and consolidations. Those are encyclopedic changes. There is clearly encyclopedic content on this subject with WP:RS to support that fact.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:39, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The question above was not whether notability persists but whether it exists? WP:LISTED indicates no automatic notability from a stock exchange listing. It does suggest that in the case of a major listing (NYSE being the example) sources should be available if sought. But in such cases, and similarly in this case, of a firm which is said to have had a former NASDAQ listing, notability still needs to be demonstrated. AllyD (talk) 11:12, 22 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep, , .  As per these sources, company was listed on NYSE as MSC, now listed on NASDAQ as MASC.  As per WP:NOIMPROVEMENT, "...articles are not notable or non-notable, topics are. Per WP:NEXIST, topic notability is based upon source availability, rather than the state of sourcing in articles...See also WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP.  (See § Nobody's working on it (or impatience with improvement), above, for the related argument that the subject must not be notable if people aren't working on it.)"   Unscintillating (talk) 13:08, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
 * having a listing on the main board of the nYSE has usually been regarded as justification for inclusion, but not having a listing on NASDAQ--some major firrms do prefer to remain of NASDAQ, but the majority of firms there are very minor.  DGG ( talk ) 00:47, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
 * So you have the evidence that it was listed on NYSE and you know that notability is not temporary (WP:NTEMP), so why haven't you withdrawn your nomination? Unscintillating (talk) 17:27, 12 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete There are simply not enough sources available to satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH. Simply being listed on a stock exchange does not lead to automatic notability. If there are not enough reliable secondary sources, we should not have an article on it (See WP:WHYN). Also arguments of the type WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES are not useful if proof cannot be shown. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:48, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * GNG requires sources, which in the plural could mean zero but in the context means two. Please show the evidence from your searches where you were unable to find two sources, which will in turn allow others to show where your research was insufficient.WP:WHYN has been repeatedly rejected over the years as a part of the guideline proper for good reason.  It is circular reasoning that if applied proves that this topic is notable...that proof being that since we have an article, this proves that we have sufficient reliable sources to have an article.  The current consensus is that WP:N is not a content guideline, see WP:NEXIST.WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES is an essay built on material rejected at WP:ATA as not policy based, because neither WP:N nor WP:V require sources.  Unscintillating (talk) 15:14, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I do not understand what you are trying to say. Regardless from what I could comprehend
 * Companies to pass WP:CORPDEPTH. I searched enough and I just couldn't find enough sources.
 * So far I haven't seen enough reliable secondary sources.
 * WP:WHYN is still a part of WP:N. There is no proof that it has been "rejected as part of the guideline" proper.
 * WP:WHYN is not circular. It goes one way. "If there are not enough sources, we shouldn't have an article". That doesn't mean "If there are sources, we should definitely have an article"
 * "Please show the evidence from your searches where you were unable to find two sources" I have no idea how to show negative proof.
 * There aren't enough reliable sources for this article. I stick to my delete. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:48, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
 * So we see no evidence that there is any problem with either WP:GNG or WP:CORP notability; rather, attention is directed to editors, guidelines, and essays to deflect from the evidence of reported research. Again, showing your search results allows other editors to consider the basis for your claim.  Unscintillating (talk) 17:27, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 21:13, 25 February 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep Delete I can't find anything significant about this company other than press releases, corporate websites and typical business directory listings. The references provided aren't independent and/or significant discussions. Glendoremus (talk) 05:03, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Write-up and sources at International Directory of Company Histories convinces me there is notability here.Glendoremus (talk) 07:51, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - I normally wouldn't do this and make my own arguments but I couldn't have put it any better than User:Unscintillating - Pmedema (talk) 01:15, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 23:04, 5 March 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete as what matters in these cases is if the article itself can be improved, and with the needed substance at that, but nothing has been offered here or different from what the article currently has, so our policy WP:What Wikipedia is not still applies, because the history here and all still shows a clear advertised business page, not an encyclopedia article. For example, above "can't find anything significant about this company other than press releases, corporate websites and typical business directory listings" still applies, since that's still what searches and the article shows, so WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:BASIC and WP:N all apply since it's not independent at all. As our policies note, if when there's enough for an article, we can reconsider but not when there's only a presumptive "maybe we can improve" or "sources exist". SwisterTwister   talk  20:07, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nom and AllyD. Sources do not show it passes WP:CORPDEPTH, and the in-depth coverage doesn't meet WP:GNG guidelines.  Onel 5969  TT me 16:10, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep There are sufficient sources, passes WP:CORP -- HighKing ++ 17:47, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete- The available sources do not demonstrate that this passes either WP:CORPDEPTH or WP:GNG, and I've been unable to find anything better. Reyk  YO!  19:36, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Exemplo347 (talk) 23:30, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:37, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:38, 15 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete -- sources presented at this AfD do not meet WP:CORPDEPTH to build an NPOV article. This material might as equally be housed on the company web site. I thus do not find this page to be of value to the project. K.e.coffman (talk) 16:44, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:LISTED, there is no inherent notability, and that guideline is unambiguous in asserting that some listed companies may not be notable. No sources in the article or here suggest notability, and nothing has been offered in this discussion to change that situation. Keep The sources found by below are reliable, independent and provide some depth. Triptothecottage (talk) 05:38, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
 * , would you review the sources I found below? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:07, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
 * These are some very well found sources. Impressive work. I have changed my vote as this clearly fulfills the "significant coverage" requirement in sources that are most certainly independent. The first source, which covers the activities of the company and mentions its demise, is particularly relevant. Triptothecottage (talk) 23:17, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
 * , thank you for the kind words and for evaluating the sources and reconsidering your position! Cunard (talk) 05:27, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.  The article notes: "In April, 17 years in upper management at Quaker Oats, Whirl-pool and FMC Corp., the jovial, 64-year-old Michael Callahan gave up retirement and the occasional consulting gig to run a sleepy manufacturer that last year netted $2.2 million pretax on $267 million in sales. Material Sciences Corp. of Elk Grove Village, Ill. was formed in 1971 to buy companies inventing new materials. Most never took off, but it managed to go public in 1984 on the back of a unit that had found a fast way to paint the raw steel and aluminum used to make car bodies, roofing and garage doors. Coil coating–which involves priming metal rolls weighing up to 50,000 pounds with absorbent chemicals, then painting them at up to 700 feet per minute on a mill–accounts for two-thirds of the company’s revenues. ... Luckily, slick marketing by Lexus made quiet cars all the rage in the early 1990s. Mat Sci’s big break didn’t come until 1998 when it began supplying the steel firewall between the dashboard and the engine for the 1999 Ford Explorer Sport Trac pickup truck. That win helped land a contract for the same part, and another one for a quiet-steel oil pan, on Ford’s new F-150 pickup. Today the company has contracts at each of the Big Three and is pursuing more than 150 new auto deals. ... As for competition, Material Sciences is far and away the dominant supplier of damped steel for autos–perhaps a $600 million market. “Our biggest competitors are the car designers,” says Edward Vydra, Mat Sci’s recently retired chief technology officer. “If they can design cars without noise, that’s it [for us]. At the same time, they are our biggest friends.”"  The article notes: "Directions aren’t always necessary. Chicago-based Material Sciences Corp., a $500 million (sales) maker of laminated metal and films, had eight analysts following it in 1995. Only two remain. A nasty confluence of missed earnings, brokerage attrition and shrinking market cap (now $170 million) took its toll. Publicly traded since 1984, Material Sciences has spent $1 million on promotional help over the past five years, to no effect. Perhaps shedding the moneylosing steel-galvanizing line–and focusing solely on profitable products such as antivibrational-steel car components and window films that reject solar heat–will spark Wall Street’s interest"</li> <li> The article notes: "With a market cap of $104 million, and only two sell-side analysts covering its stock, Material Sciences floats under the radar of most investors. Material Sciences (ticker: MASC) makes specialty materials, primarily for the automotive industry. Its metal coatings are used on car bodies and parts. The company is perhaps best known for its Quiet Steel product, which reduces noise and vibrations in cars and appliances. In the last year, Material Sciences hit a rough patch. Sales have declined, due to lower shipments of metal fuel tanks, as Ford has converted some of its vehicles to plastic tanks. ... Based in Elk Grove Village, Ill., Material Sciences' sales are roughly split between its acoustical materials like Quiet Steel and Quiet Aluminum, and its coated metal products, which include electrogalvanized materials, as well as ElectroBrite, an alternative to stainless steel in appliances. Major customers include U.S. Steel, Chrysler and Ford. ... It's worth noting that Material Sciences is a thinly traded stock, with only 17,000 shares changing hands a day. That can make the stock volatile. Investors should exercise caution when building a position."</li> <li> From Cengage.com: "When students, job candidates, business executives, historians and investors need accurate and detailed information on the development of any of the world's largest and most influential companies, direct them to International Directory of Company Histories. This multi-volume work is the first major reference to bring together histories of companies that are a leading influence in a particular industry or geographic location." The book notes: "Public Company Incorporated: 1971 Employees: 740 Sales: $266.8 million (2003)  Stock Exchanges: New York  Ticker Symbol: MSC  NAIC: 332812 Metal Coating, Engraving (Except Jewelry and Silverware), and Allied Services to Manufacturers  Material Sciences Corporation (MSC) is a publicly traded company based in Elk Grove, Illinois. It designs, manufactures, and markets materials-based solutions for electronic, acoustical/thermal, and coated metal applications. MSC's metal laminate product, NRGDamp, is used in the electronics industry to reduce noise and vibrations in hard disk drives. The company also produces Quiet Steel, used by the auto industry to reduce noise and vibration. The material has been applied primarily in dash panels but is also being used in an increasing number of other applications such as wheel wells and floor pans. In addition, MSC's high-speed coated metal operation produces painted and electrogalvanized sheet metal for use in building and construction products, automobile exterior panels, and appliances such as refrigerators and freezers. MSC also makes sensors and switches, relying on its patented field effect technology, for the automotive, recreational vehicle, marine, and consumer electronics markets. Founding the Company in 1971 MSC was founded in 1971 as a holding company to acquire businesses involved in advanced materials technologies. The most important of these companies, and the only one in the fold when the company went public in 1984, was Pre Finish Metals. It was originally known as All Weather Steel Products, founded in Chicago in 1951 by Roy Crabtree. The company started out applying protective aluminum paint to sheets of metal, used to make air ducts for heating and air conditioning systems. The demand for the product grew so rapidly that All Weather soon dropped sheet processing in favor of continuous coil coating. In 1954 the operation was transferred to a converted mushroom barn in Des Plaines, Illinois, where new coil processing equipment was installed to meet ever increasing demand. Then, in May 1958, sawdust insulation in the roof ignited spontaneously and the subsequent explosion and fire completely destroyed the building. All Weather's management took immediate steps to establish a new production facility and preserve the company's customer base. Three competitors agreed to fill outstanding orders, with All Weather's personnel dispatched to oversee production. ..." The book provides extensive discussion of the subject.</li> <li>International Directory of Company Histories also provides a "Further Reading" section that provides more sources about Material Sciences Corporation: "Arndorfer, James B., 'Gabelli Groups Turn Up Heat on Metal Firms,' Crain's Chicago Business, June 2, 2003, p. 3. Keefe, Lisa M., 'Metal Firm Is Up for Sale,' Crain's Chicago Business, July 2, 1990, p. 70. Murphy, H. Lee, 'Bad Timing Snarls Material Sci. Deal,' Crain Chicago Business, July 19, 1999, p. 36. Nelson, Brett, 'Shhh!,' Forbes, November 24, 2003, p. 84. Savitz, Eric J., 'A Fresh Shine,' Barron's, November 4, 1991, p. 14. Setton, Dolly, 'Steel Deal,' Forbes, October 18, 1999, p. 190. Troxell, Thomas N., Jr., 'Tripod for Growth,' Barron's, July 1, 1985, p. 33." <li>Hoover's has an industry report about Material Sciences Corporation under a paywall at http://www.hoovers.com/company-information/cs/company-report.material_sciences_corporation.f622bdcf9e26730a.html. The summary notes: "Material Sciences Corporation, known as MSC, makes engineered materials, as well as coated steel and electro-galvanized steel products. MSC has two primary product segments: acoustical (anti-noise and vibration products, including the trademarked Quiet Steel reduced vibration metal) and coated (decorative and protective metal coatings). The company's products are used by the appliance, automotive, building systems, computer, construction, furniture, HVAC, lighting, and telecommunications industries. Automobile manufacturers are among the company's largest clients. MSC gets most of its sales in the US." Hoover's lists a sample report about Exxon at http://www.hoovers.com/content/dam/english/dnb-solutions/general-company-research/69-exxon-hooversreport.pdf that discusses Exxon's "Company Description" and "Company History" in detail. Similar coverage Material Sciences Corporation in Hoover's industry report about it would provide significant coverage of the Material Sciences Corporation. </li> </ol>There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Material Sciences Corporation to pass Notability, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard (talk) 06:07, 22 March 2017 (UTC) </li></ul>
 * Comment and analysis - All of the sources above have clear pricing and costs information or along with other primary-sourced content, which violates our main policy, WP:Wikipedia is not a sales catalogue, see, , , Material Sciences' sales are roughly split between its acoustical materials like, , . Next, the information contains clear quotes such as the company life story, the businesspeople thoughts and plans, etc. which are unacceptable for article significance. None of that satisfies WP:CORPDEPTH or WP:GNG given it's all PR information, not for an encyclopedia. SwisterTwister   talk  19:58, 23 March 2017 (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.