Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kadant

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. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:52, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kadant[edit]

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

No indication of significance or importance. Being a public traded company does not assert notability. Routine stock market reports, corporate listings, press releases, and primary sources. Fails WP:GNG, WP:ORG, and WP:ORGDEPTH. WP:NOTYELLOW Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:47, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: An article on a firm going about its business but I am finding only routine announcements - nothing to indicate WP:CORPDEPTH notability. AllyD (talk) 08:11, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Another NYSE company from the same ring of editors. I consider such companies notable, not borderline notable. For borderline notability , I support the removal of promotional articles especially from this sort of editing. For ones that are not borderline, the company, despite its poor choice (or perhaps the choice of an external group to use it as a teaching example) nonetheless is appropriate for an article, and we should rewrite. I am, as I always have been . prepared to do that. DGG ( talk ) 10:33, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:03, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:03, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:04, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 08:14, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Is a multinational company. There appears to be enough independent third party cites to meet WP:GNG. VMS Mosaic (talk) 02:17, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 17 January 2014 (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.