Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SITEX 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. Trending keep, but with qualifications, therefore no clear consensus.  Sandstein  11:49, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

SITEX Corporation

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article has superficial referenciness but it turns out that the references don't support the notability of the company (for example, "In February 1999, SITEX became the first and only uniform rental plant in the United States to have all textile processes ISO 9002 certified" is sourced to a Houston Chronicle article describing ISO9002 but not mentioning SITEX, and to the ISO 9000 definition on ISO's homepage). The user has fewer than 200 edits which include writing a small number of articles that appear to be promotional, one of which (on a firm of ambulance chasers) was submitted at AFC and deleted, the other (on a quack) I submitted and is also heading to delete. The crappy state of this article could be a result of inexperience, but it looks more like an attempt to paint a minor family form as more significant than it actually is. Guy (Help!) 14:58, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * "Crappy state of the article" seems a bit harsh. I will look for a few more citations and remove the ISO9000 line you've questioned but this organization is pretty noteworthy in the Kentucky and Indiana areas they operate in. It isn't a commercial article or focused on the products but the impact they've had on the economic state of that areas as they have taken over several other businesses and acquired a good bit of the operations of organizations. I'll make sure to pass any articles I feel deserve to be included through the AFC in the future to avoid eating up editors' and contributors' time or making wiki look bad. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AChrisTurner (talk • contribs) 15:49, 1 March 2016‎
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  Vipinhari  &#124;&#124;  talk  16:10, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  Vipinhari  &#124;&#124;  talk  16:10, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

*Keep. As a sailor, this corporation is a big-time player in the marine electronics industry. Sorry. Wrong SiTex. Apologies.  Aloha27   talk  00:01, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I've made a few edits to remove content unsupported by references. AChrisTurner (talk) 16:16, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep. The sources are decent. SITEX is notable enough for a stand alone article IMO. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 18:19, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete and draft and userfy if needed as my searches actually found nothing better. SwisterTwister   talk  07:48, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep. Some of the fluff the article had was annoying, but I think it has bare notability based on existing press mentions.  Stevie is the man!  Talk • Work 17:46, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  19:46, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  19:46, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — UY Scuti Talk  19:55, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep, notability seems established and article is (after the edits mentioned above) sourced for all main statements. --Reinoutr (talk) 11:22, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep Statements in article are sourced by third party sources and therefore SITEX is notable. MrWooHoo (talk) 21:15, 19 March 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.