Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Triumph Group


 * 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.

Triumph Group
The result was keep per WP:SNOW.--Father Goose (talk) 01:45, 17 November 2010 (UTC) AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

I don't see sufficient evidence for notability. The results for this company on Google News appear only to be "press releases" that discuss its quality as an investment. I see no mention of its products. Justin W Smith talk/stalk 01:29, 16 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Triumph Group is a $1.2 Billion company on the NYSE. Jax 0677 (talk) 07:06, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * (re-pasted from the article talk: page) Andy Dingley (talk)


 * Keep NYSE listed, S&P 600 list. They might be the dullest company ever, but it's crazy to claim that a company in either of those two listings can somehow sneak through without being noted! Andy Dingley (talk) 01:39, 16 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep this company appears to be notable; as it does have a stock. Having a stock definitely means something. Thanks. Endofskull (talk) 02:25, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep While it definitely needs improvement and expansion, notability isn't an issue, per the other Keeps above. - BilCat (talk) 02:56, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, I've added info on the company's purchase what was left of Vought, a well-known aviation company, in June 2010. I;m sure there's more out there that can be added, and I'll do what I can fo add more. - BilCat (talk) 04:38, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep I just looked in google news. It's got articles in Barron's, Dallas Morning News, Toronto Star, etc.  It is in the news. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 11:23, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe these "articles" are actually press releases. Can you demonstrate one that's not? Justin W Smith talk/stalk 17:28, 16 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. This supplier of aerospace components and systems may not be a household name, but it gets in by pure weight of economic significance, being listed on major stock exchanges as an index stock.  - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:16, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - The votes to "keep" here seem to based upon its being a publicly held company, however this alone is not sufficient. See WP:LISTED. Justin W Smith talk/stalk 16:50, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * SOFIXIT BEFORE you bring it to AfD and waste everyone's time. Did you get the little footnote about "sufficient independent sources almost always exist for such companies"? Andy Dingley (talk) 16:59, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * If I could've found any specifics about what the company does, I would have. Justin W Smith talk/stalk 17:02, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Note, it says "*almost* always exist". Justin W Smith talk/stalk 17:03, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Please also see COMPANY. I see no "depth of coverage".  The results from google news appear to all be press releases, or other trivial items that have no depth. Justin W Smith talk/stalk 17:09, 16 November 2010 (UTC)


 * The fact that others found specifics after the AFD was filed strongly suggest that others could have found specifics before the AFD was filed. None of us our perfect, and most of us here could tell of searches we did that failed, but others were able found good information on the same subject. But you have to ask, and ADFs are not really not the best way to do that. That is where projects can be of big help, and editors that have been of help in the past. - BilCat (talk) 17:13, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * What "specifics"? You mean the "brief announcements of mergers or sales of part of the business"? Anyways, it's not worth fighting over. Justin W Smith talk/stalk 17:18, 16 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I did do multiple searches for information about the company, and have yet to see a substantive article about the company. They're almost all in the form of press releases, which are "self-published" and not admissible. For example, this reference is a press release. And this would qualify as a "brief announcement". You can disagree with the nomination, but don't say that it's baseless w/o clear evidence to the contrary. Justin W Smith talk/stalk 17:26, 16 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Then continue to file premature frivolous AFDs in complete oblivion. I'll be very surprised if the article is deleted, and I'll certainly contest it if it is. The AFD is not even a day old, and I'll still be doing more work over the next 7 days as I have time. I wouldn't even be trying if I genuinely though the company was not notable. - BilCat (talk) 17:33, 16 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Lighten up. (I don't file AfD very often so there's no need to assume that I'll "continue to...".)  And the article almost surely won't be deleted, so you can relax. Justin W Smith talk/stalk 17:46, 16 November 2010 (UTC) (18:07, 16 November 2010 (UTC))


 * I almost never file a PROD or AFD without seeking a second opinion on a project page or from an editor I trust. The fact that you apparantly relied solely on your own judgement is qutie telling. WP is a collaborative project, and it's almost always a good thing to get someone else involved in whatever one does in WP. - BilCat (talk) 17:38, 16 November 2010 (UTC)


 * "quite telling"? "Telling" of what? It's brought to an AfD for review; that's what an AfD is for. However, I'll try to remember to bounce it off a few others before I nominate next time. Also, I've been around Wikipedia long enough to understand the collaboration involved.  Don't be so insulting. WP:ASSUME and WP:BOLD (17:48, 16 November 2010 (UTC)) Justin W Smith talk/stalk 17:46, 16 November 2010 (UTC)


 * It wasn't meant to be insulting, just instructive. Given your behavior and attidude here, no real experiance is evident. - BilCat (talk) 18:12, 16 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Now you're interfering with efforts to improve the article? Do you want a 3RR block?? It can be arranged. Time to call in an admin. - BilCat (talk) 18:49, 16 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Cool off... relax. You're way too worked up over this. And again, you're assuming bad faith. The policy says "once the notability is established...", which hasn't been done yet due to the dearth of reliable sources. But I have no interest in edit warring over this issue. We both have the same goal of improving the quality of Wikipedia, we just disagree about what content should be included.  Justin W Smith talk/stalk 18:56, 16 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep - meets WP:CORP for notability. - Ahunt (talk) 19:11, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Press releases aren't ideal, but suffice for a corporation. OEM companies usually don't make their own products, but do so for other companies and tend to "fly under the radar".Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:37, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - Finding coverage of the company wasn't hard -- Triumph Group Rolls The Dice With Vought - Aviation Week (Not a reprint of the press release). India set to join China as big aerospace manufacturing market. Aviation Week (Article about the group expanding into Asia). The company is clearly notable. -SidewinderX (talk) 20:16, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - Lots of articles and information can be found in Flight Global simply by using the search term "Triumph Group." Latest article Triumph Group aquires Vought or TG supplying transmissions for MD500/600 helicopters. Minorhistorian (talk) 21:48, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * KEEP, not to pile on, but can I invoke WP:SNOWBALL now! Bzuk (talk) 22:16, 16 November 2010 (UTC).
 * I would agree to that. If an admin would like to go ahead and close this AfD (early), I wouldn't object and I doubt anyone else would either. Justin W Smith talk/stalk 22:34, 16 November 2010 (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.