Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shermco Industries

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. There is no consensus for deleting this article. (non-admin closure) Supdiop (T🔹C) 09:30, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shermco Industries[edit]

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

Questionably notable and especially unacceptable current state with not much changing since starting (by a "SBellPR") in June 2009. The best my searches was this, this (Books particularly found at page 2, fourth from the top "leading provider of rotating apparatus and electrical power system testing, commissioning, repair, maintenance and training" making it likely one of the best links there), this and this. Pinging Excirial and Graeme Bartlett. SwisterTwister talk 06:39, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:40, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:40, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:40, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep failure to improve is not a reason to delete. It does appear to be a significant company. It has acquired some other companies too. There are some non-press release info out there such as http://dfw.cbslocal.com/video/11166263-eye-on-technology-shermco-industries/ and http://openjurist.org/613/f2d/1314/shermco-industries-inc-v-secretary-of-air-force Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:13, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:GNG and possibly also WP:CORP. I have added some 5-6 cites, none of those Graeme Bartlett mentions though, and there are more out there for those who want to flesh this out further. -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 14:02, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:18, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as meeting WP:GNG. VMS Mosaic (talk) 03:12, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. as failing GNG. references for local bizjournals are no better than PR. A video on cbslocal, ditto. A notice of a minor court case involving it, irrelevant. DGG ( talk ) 04:14, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jenks24 (talk) 05:07, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm hoping for a balanced consensus and I'm not sure if others are going to comment so would you, Onel5969? SwisterTwister talk 05:45, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Onel5969 again in case he missed or never got the other ping. SwisterTwister talk 23:16, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Remark: That kind of pinging is not obviously appropriate. -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 01:36, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Sailor Read that first paragraph and that's my intention, "notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it is done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus". I simply want a better consensus than five and now four votes (removed the one below). Rather than criticizing my AfDs, AfD could use more useful votes (it's worth noting I've been one of the hardest working AfDers so I doing almost all the work myself). SwisterTwister talk 01:47, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*delete - reads like an advertisement. non-notable. DangerDogWest (talk) 06:41, 24 October 2015 (UTC)</> See user's page to see they are not an authentic user. SwisterTwister talk 01:47, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The content struck above was posted by a confirmed sock. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:49, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - Doesn't really matter if I'm pinged or not. I would have looked at this article on Saturday. I usually look at still open discussions on the final day and either close (if they have reached a keep consensus - I'm not an admin so I can't close deletes), comment if warranted, or relist if I think more discussion would be a good thing. Having said all that, on to the article. The article currently has 6 citations, provided by Sam Sailor, 3 of which all deal with the same event. The CNBC article is a very good citation. The other two articles are nice, but very brief and not in-depth. But going through the rest of the citations on News, those were the only 6 good citations on News, the rest were either trivial mentions or press releases. I'm not keen on either of Graeme Bartlett's cites, the second is merely the posting of a lawsuit. Newspapers had nada. Books had only trivial mentions or recaps of the lawsuit versus the Air Force. However, the number of places where the lawsuit is talked about seems to indicate significance. In addition, there's this, and what appears to be several more nice articles. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:35, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:28, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:26, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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.