Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neace Lukens


 * 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. The Bushranger One ping only 02:50, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Neace Lukens

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Contested PROD. Non-notable subsidiary of a non-notable holding company of a barely notable private equity firm. The sources cited do not establish notability -- they mostly consist of press releases about firms they acquired, and there's no significant coverage shown. &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 19:52, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 20:03, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 20:03, 2 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - Lacks reliable sources. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:22, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Sufficient reliable sources from around the country are cited in the article such that notability can be verified without further research.  I also checked Bloomberg Businessweek, and found this.  The concern that the parent holding company might not be notable is not a problem, as notability is not inherited.  I examined one of the  sources, and see that it was written by a reporter with a bio that includes a picture, a phone number, and a list of beats.  A press release is used to source the main part of the story, but this story is not a press release, and it includes additional material.  The story includes a picture made by a staff reporter that was acquired in the offices of the business.  This source is significant coverage.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:57, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 07:11, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:14, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 02:22, 22 January 2013 (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.