Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wasserstrom


 * 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. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:53, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Wasserstrom

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Contested Prod, Fails WP:COMPANY Google News reveals no coverage of this company RP459 (talk) 16:08, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is an old company, which argues in its favor, but the article does not assert notability aside from its existence.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 18:54, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Long established national company, The basic facts are verified by the its own web page, and with a   search,   under the proper heading ,"Wasserstrom Company", Google News Archive  gives a good number of sources, including the Washington Post, and an award. (Note however the GNews now includes Display advertisements in its coverage, so the actual hits must be looked at every one of them, not merely counted). Even were the good GNews sources not there, a search for RS in print sources is needed before concluding it is unsourceable. I remind people about WP:BEFORE, which ought to be required.  I changed the article title to the actual name.  DGG ( talk ) 23:40, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 14:22, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 14:22, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget  22:55, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Weak keep - Typically we don't use the subject's own webpage to verify and, in this case, ratify its notability. That aside, this appears to be a notable company, and I see very little to suggest that this article is a veiled attempt at promotion. More important, there are reliable sources, albeit spread out, that reference the company in a notable way. No prejudice to the nom at the time of nomination, but I think it's notable. Shadowjams (talk) 10:46, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * no offense taken I never mind if something I nominated stays because someone found something I did not... RP459 (talk) 17:49, 6 October 2009 (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.