Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crane Co.

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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 11:43, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Crane Co.

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article on a company is devoid of WP:INDEPENDENT sources. A BEFORE finds only the most WP:ROUTINE coverage. Fails GNG. Chetsford (talk) 07:52, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 09:22, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 09:22, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep even a cursory google search reveals some mention in independent sources eg [1] [2][3][4]. Should not be deleted. --Tom (LT) (talk) 11:59, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The first of these is a press release, the second is a ticker symbol listing, the third is in Seeking Alpha (not RS), and the fourth is a WP:ROUTINE M&A report. Chetsford (talk) 16:19, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Keep per Tom (LT). --Jax 0677 (talk) 16:15, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. If the best possible search revealed a press release, a crowdsourced site, and a news report, one would generally assume it to be non-notable, but I'm on the fence here. Rather than merely listing a ticker symbol, the Reuters page is an independent, expert-written document of significant length (4789 characters by my count), far more than we demand on the minimum side of significant coverage. The only problem is that it's alone; lacking any other significant coverage in reliable secondary sources, deletion has to be the choice, but if a comparable source could be found, it would definitely need to be restored. Nyttend (talk) 01:44, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree Reuters is a reliable source, their reuters.com/finance/stocks/companyProfile section includes a company summary for all 5,200 NASDAQ / NYSE traded companies and, per WP:LISTED, we don't consider trading on a major exchange evidence of WP:N. I agree the information in it is suitable for referencing an article, but I don't think it should be used to demonstrate notability since the only criteria for having a profile on it is a ticker symbol registered with the NYSE or NASDAQ. Chetsford (talk) 02:22, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But the point is that it's a reliable secondary source that provides extensive coverage. Who cares why they provide it? Trading on a major exchange isn't evidence of notability (otherwise I'd be arguing for a keep), but if some company decides to employ experts to produce reliable-source coverage on all of them, we can't just ignore the experts' writeups and demand just as many solid sources as we would if the experts hadn't written anything. Nyttend (talk) 04:53, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it's definitely a reliable secondary source for facts. I only disagree it's evidence of notability. Every NASDAQ/NYSE traded company receives a similar profile as part of the investor intelligence side (Customer Markets) of the Thomson Reuters business (this [Customer Markets Division] is the same operating unit of Thomson Reuters that hosts BusinessWire / PRNewswire press releases on reuters.com and is separate from the newsgathering / reporting unit [Reuters Division]). The investor profiles are largely adopted / paraphrased from the respective companies Form 10-Ks; this is significantly different from a journalistic Reuters story. Ergo, it strikes me as being closer to a Business Journals article and treatable in the same way we approach those (as a source but not evidence of notability). But we may have to agree to disagree. Chetsford (talk) 05:35, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment & Keep I've just added an important SCOTUS case that Crane involved in. While searching, I've also found that the firm seems to have had a number of other lawsuits, including a California Supreme Court case from 2012 called O'Neil v. Crane Co,[5] which involved the US Navy. I am certain that there is quite a lot of relevant material regarding this company, though its not as easy to find as for a retailer or celebrity. Markvs88 (talk) 06:50, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Withdraw as nom. Based on being the subject of a SCOTUS case, I believe this meets notability. Thanks to Markvs88 for salvaging. Chetsford (talk) 07:17, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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.