Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AAON

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. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:58, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AAON[edit]

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

The page was written by User:Samneale who is a WP:SPA (see [1]). The majority of the page was ripped from here [2] which I have deleted. There is only a short intro left. After researching the company in Google News, I can not find anything about them besides stock performance reports -- something that's ubiquitous to all publicly traded companies. IMO, the company fails WP:N. CerealKillerYum (talk) 04:57, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 01:30, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Arxiloxos (talk) 00:25, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. Arxiloxos (talk) 00:25, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no significant coverage in reliable sources. Fails WP:ORG and fails GNG. I also see it has been written by a SPA.---Steve Quinn (talk) 04:57, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 23:27, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment currently undecided - like nominator I found mostly trivial stock mentions [3], [4], which by itself isn't enough of course. I did find some local coverage [5], [6], again not enough for WP:Notability alone, but it makes me wonder if there is more. I'll search again after I add them to the page. Yvarta (talk) 21:27, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep although not by much. It seems only Tulsa World finds AAON interesting enough to cover regularly, and less so The Oklahoman, but with the former the coverage is extensive, with some sources I haven't bothered adding to the page as well [7], [8], [9]. I'm not particularly excited to be banking my vote on only one publication, but the newspaper is high profile and reputable on a state level (I won't go so far as to say national, although I've encountered the newspaper before). Yvarta (talk) 22:09, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment From wp:corp "Evidence of significant coverage by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability. On the other hand, attention solely from local (as in - with a circulation limited to a single city or metropolitan area) media, or media of limited interest and circulation (such as trade journals), is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary." Which I think makes this a "maybe" in terms of coverage. Plus, generally, references from the same source (newspaper) generally are considered a single source for notability purposes. LaMona (talk) 20:35, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:31, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:31, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm somewhat torn about this one. The company and its corporate predecessors and spinoffs have been important in their industries—and in the Oklahoma economy—going back some 90 years, and remain so; AAON has also gotten significant coverage in business media (see the HighBeam search results for examples). But identifying sufficient online reliable sources to establish this notability in the Wikipedian sense does not seem to be easy. --Arxiloxos (talk) 17:44, 1 August 2016 (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.