Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UTEX Industries


 * 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. Nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure) Majora (talk) 03:10, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

UTEX Industries

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Content is generally promotional and all content of any substance is drawn directly from the company's own website. The Ownership section is the only part of the page that has anything approaching independent sources, and these are simply press releases (so not that independent). Can't find any better sources online that would attest to notability. Yunshui 雲 水 14:05, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions.  Jupitus Smart  14:09, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi, I saw the helpdesk posting so I did a little search for sources of my own. Please could you comment on the validity or otherwise of the following potential sources, and whether, in your opinion, they constitute sufficient to meet the notability requirements;


 * "Private Equity Firm Tied to New York Pension Scandal Raises $7.7 Billion From Investors" in New York Times,
 * "Investment triggers rapid growth at Ashington seal manufacturer" in The Journal,
 * "UTEX to consolidate operations, bolster base" in Rubber and Plastics News,
 * "Moody’s Reviews 69 American Energy Companies for Downgrade" in 24/7 Wall Street,
 * "UTEX Industries acquired by Rhone Capital" in Oil and Gas Financial Journal,
 * Thanks, 81.168.78.73 (talk) 14:34, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The NYT article only mentions UTEX Industries in passing, as do the Journal and 24/7 Wall Street. The Oil & Gas Financial Journal piece looks like a press release, but I'm less sure about Rubber and Plastic News, that one might be usable. Yunshui 雲 水 14:40, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I accept that NYT and 24/7 are passing mentions, but I don't agree about the Journal because it's about a company which it says "became part of the UTEX Industries corporation in 2011" - hence it seems directly relevent to the subject.
 * I believe there is enough to establish notability. 81.168.78.73 (talk) 14:48, 12 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep per above 81.168.78.73 (talk) 14:48, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Seems like a Keep if someone can rewrite it completely. It looks notable as nothing more than an advert at the moment. Thanks ツ Jenova   20  (email) 15:08, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. All the information in the articles able make it a notable company. https://www.bloomberg.com/research/stocks/private/snapshot.asp?privcapId=4395630 Even has a little excerpt about them. Not sure how much rewriting can be done Jenova. Information can only be stated in so many different ways. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cydney456 (talk • contribs) 15:51, 12 May 2017 (UTC)  — Cydney456 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * "Information can only be stated in so many different ways" - Yes...But there's stating information factually and neutrally, and there's stating it in an unacceptable advertising-like POV for Wikipedia. Two different ways. One acceptable here, and one not. Thanks ツ Jenova   20  (email) 12:17, 15 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep as per 81.168.78.73 above, and the Journal article, whoich should be added to our article as a cite. I removed the worst of the puffery from the article. DES (talk) 00:12, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep because the article is not a pure advertisement. It is notable and deserves to stay but only if it is almost completely rewritten. Generally speaking I don't think promotional articles with notability meet deletion criteria. The Average Wikipedian (talk) 10:55, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep: Meets GNG. Needs a lot of editing. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:47, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Withdrawn Seems pretty clear the community wants to hang on to this. Still not sure I agree, but I'm evidently in the minority. Yunshui 雲 水 13:27, 15 May 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.