Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Core Molding Technologies, Inc

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) 21:00, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Core Molding Technologies, Inc[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) 05:42, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Small local services company that has used more PR or PR-like resources, search 1 (one article says the former name was Core Material Groups but no news coverage under the name) found some results as did search 2 at The Columbus Dispatch and my final search at another newspaper found this. Even Hoss's Steak and Sea House, an article I saved in February had more local notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:07, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. hmssolent\^{You rang?} _{ship's log} 07:36, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. hmssolent\^{You rang?} _{ship's log} 07:36, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I am finding nothing beyond routine appointment and result announcements. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH notability. AllyD (talk) 08:15, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a NYSE listed company, and previous practice has been to include these. (NASDAQ on the other hand has so low requirements for listing that it does not imply notability . It is evident that this is one of many articles introduced by the same ring of editors, who at this point seem equally likely to be a misconceived educational project or a rather unselective paid editing firm. Nonetheless the information is objective and the firm is notable . I think objective industry standards, such as those of the NYSE, are more reliable than the GNG in determining notability . The GNG depends upon the chance of sourcing, the NYSE depends upon the business fundamentals. DGG ( talk ) 10:24, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:01, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - Article needs significant clean up and more independent third party cites. For example, adding cites from Hoovers concerning revenue, etc. would go a long way towards meeting WP:GNG and WP:ORGDEPTH. Don't see how WP:NOTYELLOW applies here. VMS Mosaic (talk) 03:51, 14 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]

Comment I disagree with the assumption that NYSE = notable. There are 3000 stocks listed on the exchange give or take. As I've said in other venues, I would expect that a small but significant percentage would fail WP:GNG, WP:CORP, etc. on their own merits. I've made the comparison of NYSE stocks to "baseball players who play in a minor- and/or major-league baseball." Many such players are considered not notable despite almost all of them getting pro-forma routine coverage in some reliable source or other, be it a local newspaper or a (for now, hypothetical?) specialty publication that publishes all there is to publish about minor- and major-league baseball. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 17:42, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the point of WP:LISTED is that a listed company is pretty unlikely not to be notable. In other words, a listed company is notable unless proved otherwise. This company appears to have more than enough independent third party sources to meet WP:GNG, however these sources need to be cited in order to meet WP:BURDEN. I guess the real issue is whether the nominator should have met WP:BURDEN per WP:BEFORE before AfDing? VMS Mosaic (talk) 11:07, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. GNG-type coverage is rather easy to find [1] [2] [3] [4]. Someone not using his real name (talk) 08:26, 24 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.