Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UTEX Industries (2nd nomination)


 * 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. After Cunard's rewrites, most delete !voters were convinced to keep the article.  So Why  07:24, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

UTEX Industries
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )


 * Delete: This article was nominated in the last week or so. The previous nomination was withdrawn by the nominator after a short time. I subsequently examined the article and saw that the sources do not meet the criteria for notability among other problems. I tagged the article (notability being one) but one editor disagreed and removed the tags. After some discussion (on the article Talk page) the editor put some tags back but has not added any additional sources and believes the last AfD passed with WP:SNOW and that the topic is therefore notable. Nevertheless it was agreed to put it back in AfD.


 * The existing sources in the article are either Press Releases or Primary sources from the Utex website. Despite this being the 2nd AfD in a short period of time, interested editors have not provided any sources that meet the criteria for notability.


 * This topic fails WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:ORGIND and WP:GNG. -- HighKing ++ 16:52, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions.   CAPTAIN RAJU  (✉)   18:27, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions.   CAPTAIN RAJU  (✉)   18:28, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.   CAPTAIN RAJU  (✉)   18:28, 24 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete I had the hubris to think that sourcing a WP:BASIC bio of an American company that's been around since 1940 would be a piece of cake.  I started with a Proquest news archive search on the original name ""Universal Packing and Gasket" and got absolutely nothing. My google search=  was  not much better. So I tried  "Utex Industries", but all that I could establish is that the company issues a lot of press releases and but gets only a very occassional routine or trivial mention in news media.  So, it exists, but it fails WP:CORPDEPTH. E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:41, 24 May 2017 (UTC) Changing iVote to Keep per new sources found.


 * Keep - I'm open to changing my mind but a quick search shows a lot of media coverage that could be used to improve the article. It has near a 100 year history and appears to meet notability criteria without much trouble. Recent advert-wording issues have been solved and now the article just needs expansion. Thanks ツ Jenova   20  (email) 10:10, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
 * User:Jenova20, Can you share some of the substantive, RS coverage.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:35, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
 * this book on "High Pressure Pumps" - found by HighKing
 * Passing mention, but Reliable source
 * this seems factual and informative
 * this talks about Moody's and their rating cut
 * Reuters
 * same topic, different source
 * this seems decent
 * this
 * this court case
 * acquisition news
 * another acquisition
 * another one
 * and another
 * US dept of Labor complaint for violations
 * How's that? Certainly enough out there for good article expansion. Thanks ツ Jenova   20  (email) 14:14, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi, you are correct that a source must be reliable, but you don't appear to be critically analysing the articles published by the sources with an eye on WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. Being a reliable source isn't enough, on its own, to establish notability. Here are my comments on the sources you've mentioned above.
 * Yes, a passing mention. Fails point 12 (the last one) of WP:CORPDEPTH.
 * Yes, seems factual and informative. But, the publication is not national or regional but local (Newcastle in the UK). It also seems to me to fail point 11 of WP:CORPDEPTH ("quotations from an organization's personnel as story sources").
 * this talks about Moody's and their rating cut. I'm not 100% sure how to think about this one. This is the original announcement from Moody's and it is a routine announcement from Moody's (point 5 or 6 of WP:CORPDEPTH. See here for a list of all announcements from Moody's regarding UTEX Industries. Therefore fails point
 * Reuters. The article mentions Utex but the content makes it clear that the information is not reliable.
 * same topic, different source yes, but its a circular argument. This article directly references reuters as the originating source, therefore this source is not considered as a separate source.
 * this seems decent except its a copy of a company Press Release so fails WP:ORGIND
 * this fails WP:CORPDEPTH as it is only a mention in passing
 * this court case also fails for the same reason. BTW, if a newspaper has covered the proceedings, then there's a good chance that article would meet the criteria.
 * acquisition news except fails WP:ORGIND because it is a Press Release from the company and their new landlord
 * another acquisition Except it is listed in a newsletter called "Sealing Technology" which this website sells. You're just looking at a snippet. The newsletter is not widely distributed and (in my opinion) fails as a reliable secondary source.
 * another one which is also a regurgitation of a Press Release and therefore fails WP:ORGIND (it even has a link to the original Riverstone press release).
 * and another which is also regurgitating the earlier Reuters unreliable whisper.
 * US dept of Labor complaint for violations I believe this one is good and meets the criteria.
 * I believe there are now two sources (and possibly three - perhaps the reuters published rumour meets the critera .. not convinced though) that meet the criteria for establishing notability. The article should incorporate the details in those sources and reference them. I'd like to wait to see if anyone has any further comments on the source above regarding the US dept of Labor complaint before striking my Delete !vote. -- HighKing ++ 16:39, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note on Sources The article is entirely PRIMARY sourced with the lone exception of a 2014 article in Rubber and Plastics News, a publication with which I am unfamiliar.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:35, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Delete Wikipedia is not a free Company Website hosting service. Exemplo347 (talk) 19:45, 2 June 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Taken in isolation, the comments in this AfD clearly justify closing this as delete. However, the previous AfD, just a couple of weeks ago, came to a very different conclusion. It's true that some of the arguments in the previous AfD were not well-founded (and/or from IP/SPA editors) but there were also some reasonable arguments for keeping that were put forth. Given that, I think it's worth letting this run for another week.
 * Note that participants in previous (brief) AfD included IP  81.168.78.73; and SPA User:Cydney456.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:53, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete -- just a product brochure. Such content belongs on the company web site. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:39, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - While it does get some passing mentions, not the type of in-depth coverage needed to show it passes WP:CORPDEPTH.  Onel 5969  TT me 13:20, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Changing vote to Keep after further research and article re-write by Cunard.  Onel 5969  TT me 12:29, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 12:27, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete, with reference to the investigation above. Note that the previous AFD only really considered the spammy nature of the article, and did not look in depth at notability as this one has.  The spam issue has been addressed well, but I feel that the notability issue has not.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:34, 4 June 2017 (UTC).
 * Comment - on cursory investigation, an otherwise undistinguished lower middle market company has managed to become the core of a rather convoluted rollup spearheaded by a succession of pe firms, all of which makes for a well-documented, albeit one-dimensional story. It's unclear that the rigorous coverage of the financial saga licenses general notability. Advocata (talk) 11:38, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.  The article notes: "Moody's Investors Service has affirmed the ratings, including the B3 Corporate Family Rating and B3-PD probability of default rating, of UTEX Industries, Inc. ('UTEX'). The rating outlook remains negative. ... The B3 corporate family rating reflects UTEX's small size, a high degree of financial leverage, an aggressive financial policy, and the company's heavy exposure to the cyclical oil and gas market which is currently undergoing a major downturn. The rating benefits from a demonstrated track record of earnings growth, strong free cash flow generating capabilities, and a good liquidity profile. The rating is further supported by the customized and consumable nature of many of the company's products which we believe will partially mitigate on-going earnings pressure resulting for the downturn in UTEX's key end markets. ...  UTEX Industries, Inc., headquartered in Houston, Texas, is a designer and manufacturer of highly engineered specialty sealing and down-hole products primarily for the oil and gas industry. Key products include well service packings, custom tailored products, specialty valves, mining and oilfield products and spring energized seals. UTEX was acquired by affiliates of Riverstone Holdings LLC in April 2013." Notability (organizations and companies) says: "There has been considerable discussion over time whether publicly traded corporations, or at least publicly traded corporations listed on major stock exchanges such as the NYSE and other comparable international stock exchanges, are inherently notable. Consensus has been that notability is not automatic in this (or any other) case. However, sufficient independent sources almost always exist for such companies, so that notability can be established using the primary criterion discussed above. Examples of such sources include independent press coverage and analyst reports. Accordingly, article authors should make sure to seek out such coverage and add references to such articles to properly establish notability." Although UTEX Industries is not a publicly traded corporation, I am quoting this text here to emphasize that analyst reports like this Moody's report can be used to establish notability.  The article notes: "The settlement with Mr. Cuomo has not slowed Riverstone down. Last year, the firm and Apollo Global Management led a $7.15 billion acquisition of the exploration and production unit of the El Paso Corporation and also paid $825 million for UTEX Industries, a maker of sealing products for oil-and-gas drilling. Those prominent deals and other profitable investments helped attract public pensions and other deep-pocketed clients to Riverstone’s latest fund." $825 million is a substantial acquisition.</li> <li> The article notes: "UTEX Industries Inc. plans to consolidate its Singapore operations by constructing a 48,000 sq.-ft. facility that is expected to employ up to 60 by the end of this year. The company manufactures custom engineered rubber and urethane solutions for a variety of industries. ... The Singapore office is expected to support UTEX Industries' operations in the Middle East. The company has more than 600 employees worldwide with seven manufacturing facilities in the U.S., all located in Texas, and one in Northcumberland, England. The Houston-based firm has another sales office in Brazil. UTEX Industries has operated a sales office in Singapore since 2011 that traditionally has been supported by engineering and manufacturing efforts in the U.S."</li> <li> The article notes: "Utex Industries Inc., maker of mechanical seals and other molded elastomer products, has acquired the Accuseal name and polymeric seal business from Corrosion Control Corp. The deal allows Houston-based Utex the opportunity to fill a hole in its offerings with Accuseal´s spring-energized polymer seals, made of polyesters and Teflons. Accuseal, which also makes silicone-filled seals, is now a division of Utex and will be based in a leased 11,000-sq.-ft. facility in Houston near the company´s corporate offices. Accuseal moved from Lakewood, Colo."</li> <li> The article notes: "Houston-based Utex is a designer and maker of gaskets and engineered seals for the oil and gas, water distribution, aerospace, medical, food and beverage, chemical and petrochemical, power generation, and general industrial markets. The firm was founded in 1940 as Universal Packing and Gasket, and has plants totaling almost 400,000 square feet of space in Hou-ston, Conroe, Weimar and Odessa, Texas. It calls itself the largest rubber molder in the southern U.S., having made several acquisitions over the years, including Applied Rubber Technology Inc. and more recently Accuseal. Utex itself was purchased two years ago by Grey Mountain Partners, according to the company's Web site. Mike Balas will continue as CEO, and the rest of the management team will remain in place. He said in a statement that the Audax purchase would give Utex new investment and growth opportunities and solidify its position for long-term success."</li> <li> The article notes: "Jan 29 Utex Industries, a U.S. manufacturer of sealing products and services used for oil and gas drilling, is exploring a sale of the company that could fetch as much as $800 million, two people familiar with the matter said. New York-based private equity firm Rhone Capital, which acquired Utex for an undisclosed sum in 2010, has hired Lazard Ltd to conduct a sale, one of the sources said. ... Founded in 1940 and based in Houston, Texas, Utex makes what are known in the industry as highly engineered specialty sealing solutions and downhole consumables used for oil and gas drilling, as well as water management and mining, according to its website."</li> <li> The article notes: "In the USA, Riverstone Holdings Llc is to acquire fluid sealing company Utex Industries Inc from Rhone Capital Llc. Equity for the deal is coming from Riverstone Global Energy & Power Fund V Lp. The financial terms of this transaction were not disclosed. The deal, which is subject to certain regulatory approvals, is expected to close as this issue of Sealing Technology goes to press. Founded in 1940, Utex Industries manufactures engineered sealing and other speciality products used in a variety of applications, and equipment related to onshore and offshore oil and gas drilling and production, power generation, mining, water treatment, and other industrial sectors. Many of the company's products are used in severe operating environments, where high pressures and temperatures present particular challenges that require unique and customised technology and products. The majority of Utex Industries' products are 'consumables' with short life-cycles and need to be replaced at regular intervals to avoid failure in critical, capital-intensive applications."</li> <li> The article notes: "UTEX settles case Texas Attorney General Jim Mattox said UTEX Inc., a copier-machine company, agreed to refund nearly $8,000 to small-business customers, churches and schools in Central Texas. Mattox's office had sued in district court, saying UTEX sold used equipment by representing it as new. Mattox said the company replaced copy-counter meters and exterior panels to make the machines appear new. UTEX must also pay the state $40,000 in penalties and costs."</li> <li> The book notes: "In a paper presented in 1998, Fred Pippert explained that in 1964, Utex Industries developed the first nonadjustable plunger packing material designed to address recipocrating pump-sealing problems. This material was composed of nitrile rubber and nylon fabric composite laminated material and was then molded into packing called the J-Design 838. In 1992, Utex began to investigate new elastomer systems that could allow the production of plunger packing material that could operate at higher pressures and temperatures as well as operate with less maintenance. Testing and evaluation were conducted, and in 1997, the new composite was introduced and given the name SuperGold."</li> <li> The article notes: "UTEX Industries, a privately owned company founded in 1940, is a total solution provider of fluid sealing products. It designs, manufactures and services molded packing and seals for reciprocating pumps, hydraulics, proprietary high-tech O-ring seals, custom rubber molded products, mechanical seals, compression packing, gaskets, sheet gasket products and maintenance products, according to the company's profile. In August, private equity firm and the issuer's financial partner Grey Mountain Partners acquired UTEX Industries, Inc., according to company information."</li> <li> The article notes: "Price talk has emerged for UTEX Industries' $725 million loan offer to fund a dividend and to repay the company's existing first- and second-lien debt. The loans are divided between a first-lien loan of $475 million, a $50 million first-lien revolver and a second-lien tranche of $200 million. Price talk on the first-lien facility is 425 bps over Libor with a 99 cents on the dollar original issue discount, according to KDP Investment Advisors. The second-lien has price talk of Libor plus 750 bps, also with a 99-cent OID."</li> <li> The article notes: "Moody's revised the outlook to negative from stable as a result of the 'significant increase' in leverage from the dividend, with debt-to-Eitda growing to 6.6x from 4.5x. Moody's says the debt will diminish the company's financial flexibility and represents a 'significantly more aggressive' financial policy that will make 'UTEX's ability to meet its cash flow targets and reduce leverage over the coming quarters will be critical rating considerations,' the report stated. ... UTEX issued the existing $300 million term loan and a $140 million second-lien loan in March 2013 to help finance its $825 million buyout by private equity sponsor Riverstone Holdings. UTEX designs and makes custom engineered sealing products and solutions catering to oil and gas, water treatment and distribution, aerospace, medical, food and beverage, chemical and petrochemical, power generation, and general industrial segments."</li> <li> The article notes: "UTEX Industries is planning to issue a $350 million first-lien credit facility comprising a $300 million term loan and a $50 million revolver. The Houston, Texas-based company is also proposing a $140 million second-lien credit facility, according to Standard & Poor's. Proceeds from the debt will be for financing private equity firm Riverstone Holdings' $825 million purchase of UTEX from Rhone Capital. S&P assigned its B corporate credit rating to the U.S. oil and gas service provider while giving its B issue-level and 3 recovery ratings to the first-lien senior secured credit facility and its CCC+ issue-level and 6 recovery ratings to the second-lien credit facility. S&P's ratings on UTEX indicates the company's small size and scale of operations, limited end-market and product diversity. The agency also considers the sealing products manufacturer's vulnerability to the highly volatile oil and gas exploration sector, its ownership by private equity, and its very aggressive leverage."</li> </ol>There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow UTEX Industries to pass Notability, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard (talk) 06:14, 9 June 2017 (UTC) </li></ul>


 * Comment: Pinging Articles for deletion/UTEX Industries participants and closer who have not commented here:, , , , and . Cunard (talk) 06:14, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I do not intend to !vote on this one. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:21, 9 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment None of the sources in 's unnecessary wall of text above count as "Significant coverage in reliable, independent sources" - it's a load of PR-based stuff or passing mentions. Exemplo347 (talk) 09:11, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The analyst report from Moody's Corporation says, "Moody's Investors Service has affirmed the ratings, including the B3 Corporate Family Rating and B3-PD probability of default rating, of UTEX Industries, Inc. ("UTEX"). The rating outlook remains negative." An article that says UTEX Industries' "rating outlook remains negative" and provides analysis to support this view is neither PR-based nor a passing mention. Notability (organizations and companies) says, "Examples of such sources include independent press coverage and analyst reports." Another source provides negative coverage of the subject: "S&P's ratings on UTEX indicates the company's small size and scale of operations, limited end-market and product diversity. The agency also considers the sealing products manufacturer's vulnerability to the highly volatile oil and gas exploration sector, its ownership by private equity, and its very aggressive leverage." That is neither PR-based nor a passing mention.  Cunard (talk) 21:16, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – XboxGamer 22408 talk 02:06, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete, but encourage rewriting It's an interesting question when someone write a promotional article, and a proper search for sources provides material from which one could write a very different article with a NPOV that represents the situation in a much less positive way, whether we should rewrite the article appropriately. My feeling is that we should keep it in only if someone actually does rewrite it. If, with his undoubted competence at NPOV writing and sourcing in this field, were to rewrite it now, I would say keep, but as this has not yet been done,  I'm therefore saying delete, but encouraging Cunard to use the sources to write a proper article. My feeling about this could be summarized as "hoist by their own petard".  DGG ( talk ) 05:36, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * , I have rewritten the article. Cunard (talk) 06:50, 15 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep. just what I hoped for. An excellent example of WP:HEY.Companies can be notable because of widely reported financial problems, not just sucesses. People who commented earlier might want to look again:  DGG ( talk ) 09:49, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Unchanged -- still a "Delete" for me; the coverage is routine: transactions, products, etc. The article is still subtly promotional, as in "Most of the company's products have short product lifecycles so must be replenished periodically to prevent important tools from not working." -- "to prevent important tools from not working"? K.e.coffman (talk) 04:51, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The source says: "The majority of Utex Industries' products are 'consumables' with short life-cycles and need to be replaced at regular intervals to avoid failure in critical, capital-intensive applications." The quoted text is an accurate paraphrasing of the source. If you have a better paraphrase of the source, please modify the sentence. Cunard (talk) 05:01, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * "Riverstone Holdings signs agreement to buy Utex Industries", by the sound of it, is redressed press release. That's why, when paraphrased, it still sounds promotional. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:05, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I've removed "important". Cunard (talk) 05:10, 16 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep I nominated this article earlier. I'm less interested in the quality of articles and more focussed on whether the topic is notable. There have now been at least two sources that pass the criteria for establishing notability. Also, thanks to Cunard for overhauling the previous versions of the article, this article is less promotional. I'm satisfied to change to a "Keep" in this instance. -- HighKing ++ 11:52, 16 June 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.