Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Whelen Engineering Company


 * 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. § FreeRangeFrog croak 17:16, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Whelen Engineering Company

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article based on primary sources. There are sources like this that confirm the existence of the company but do not attest corporate notability. Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 21:53, 6 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep Based on article Company seems Notable. Not BLP article and could be based on primary sources. A quick research showed this secondary source from Bloomberg Businessweek. Caseeart (talk) 05:47, 7 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:12, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:16, 6 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete no reliable sources indicating notability. Lemnaminor (talk) 14:09, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e deckertalk 20:23, 14 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Note: The nominator has been blocked indefinitely as a suspected sock puppet. NorthAmerica1000 12:28, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep Documented notability would appear to come mainly from the sponsorship . I presume they also have a large market share at least in some sectors, and there is sourced information available about that. This is a case of insuffficient content and insufficient referencing, not lack of notability. DGG (talk)
 * I searched and did not find much beyond sales catalogues, some trivial mentions and the Bloomberg company file. That confirms that the company exists, but does it mean that it needs an article? We already have extensive articles on the racing series they sponsor. --Lemnaminor (talk) 06:52, 18 November 2014 (UTC)


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Rcsprinter123    (confess)  @ 15:50, 22 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Merge in all the product pages, trim the result back so it is not too adverty and keep - appears to be a company of sufficient size to warrant coverage. Artw (talk) 19:04, 25 November 2014 (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.