Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hunter Engineering Company

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 delete‎. ✗plicit 03:42, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hunter Engineering Company[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Notability has not been adequately demonstrated BoraVoro (talk) 11:04, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Missouri. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:52, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Engineering, Technology, and Transportation. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:35, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Three of the sources look okay - why aren't they adequate? Garuda3 (talk) 18:09, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NCORP. References for companies must meet the criteria of WP:ORGCRIT and nothing here does. --CNMall41 (talk) 01:41, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP The references meet the criteria and prove credability of this company. Mlaviolette (talk) 19:22, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Which references meet our notability criteria though? HighKing⁺⁺ 23:44, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 13:36, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the sourcing in the article is lacking, mostly industry publications. While there's no specific bar on earned media being used for WP:NORG notability these are quite narrowcast and not indicative of independent reporting. The Wash U article is an outlier -extensive, independent but narrowly focused on a COVID/PPE issue. If other reliable in-depth coverage surfaces I'd be willing to reconsider.
@BoraVoro did you do WP:BEFORE searches? There is quite a bit of independent discussion of the company in connection with Hunter Engineering Co v Syncrude Canada Ltd but I don't see that blossomed into a broader article about the company. It would have been helpful if you had acknowledged the existence of such sources and explained why they didn't support notability.
@Mlaviolette is a single purpose account focusing on this company and its chairman Stephen F. Brauer. A query about conflict of interest is unanswered at the talk page for nearly 5 years, but this edit admits to working for the company. Oblivy (talk) 14:19, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 23:44, 11 April 2024 (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.