Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hadley Industries plc

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. Non-admin closure Source provided demonstrate that the company meets WP:NCORP. Article has been moved to Hadley Group. Cabe 6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 15:45, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hadley Industries plc[edit]

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

WP:CORP notability guidelines not met. atnair (talk) 16:29, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 February 21. Snotbot t • c » 17:16, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable company. Sources can be found for expanding the article ([1][2][3][4]). The article title should be Hadley Group or Hadley Industries, "plc" should only be used if necessary for disambiguation. Peter James (talk) 23:06, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 09:32, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sufficiently notable company. I have moved article to the proper name of Hadley Group and have marked the duplicate article Hadley group for deletion under CSD A10. Safiel (talk) 15:34, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Yuffo (talk) 20:39, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- The article is currently a redirect to Hadley Group. I would prefer the article to be at the company name, even if the content may cover subsidiaries. Rolling 125000 tons sounds significnat to me. This is four times the size of the domestic iron industry in the early 18th century. It is perhaps a poor article, but that suggests improvemetn, not deletion. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:27, 4 March 2013 (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.