Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Surface Combustion


 * 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   keep. Broad consensus to keep, WP:OTHERSTUFF with a dose of slippery slope fearmongering is pretty much the only argument presented for deleting. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:26, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Surface Combustion

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable company. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 05:23, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 9 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep - notable company that passes WP:CORPDEPTH. The company has received coverage in The Wall Street Journal and The New York Times, along with a plethora of coverage in the Toledo Blade. Source examples (many are paywalled):, , , , , , , , . Northamerica1000(talk) 08:05, 10 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Given the propensity that editors have for creating articles about tinpot companies, and the spamming by marketing hacks, WP will eventually become a business directory with a few encyclopaedia articles. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 19:22, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * How does that make the topic non-notable? Northamerica1000(talk) 04:27, 12 April 2013 (UTC)


 * It is like the WP:OTHERSTUFF argument but taken across WP as a whole. We should have articles on the really notable companies but we should not have a smattering of articles for the less notable companies. It leads to a "messy" structure and to have a WP article can lead to a company having an unfair commercial advantage. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 05:21, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:Not notable and WP:Just unencyclopedic. Northamerica1000(talk) 13:03, 14 April 2013 (UTC)


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • Sign AAPT) 00:44, 16 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep Long established company (nearly 100 years old) with significant press coverage, as well as many refs on Google Books. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:44, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Well established North American company that satisfies WP:ORG. scope_creep  (talk) 22:16, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Remove This well established and respectable company has no greater value to the market place than any of it many competitors. Talk about scope creep.  Just wait for those flood gates to open. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WGornicki (talk • contribs) 20:14, 17 April 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.