Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nordson Corporation

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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:30, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nordson Corporation[edit]

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

Questionably notable and improvable with this easily being speedy and PROD material and my searches simply found nothing better than this, this, this and this. Pinging Robsinden, Kudpung and Reaper Eternal. SwisterTwister talk 05:42, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:50, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:50, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:50, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, a NASDAQ-listed company with nearly 6,000 employees and sales of more than $1 billion. It's the kind of company that gets a lot of attention in the specialized press, with articles like this from Plastics Today or this from Plastic News. Searching for Nordson Westlake, Nordson Corp Ohio, or other variations, yield sources absent in the above searches. Nothing truly major, but enough in total to pass our notability standards. More general sources are things like this full article from the Cleveland Plain Dealer about the new Nordson headquarters, or an article about a regional award they won[1]. Fram (talk) 12:49, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There has been a "primary source" tag on this article for more than five years. And that tag was an understatement. Large portions of the History and Acquisition sections are either verbatim or near-verbatim copyings of text from the subject's web site. If we were to remove those two sections as copyright violations, and also remove the Business Profile section for its adverting tone (another tag that has been on the article for more than five years), what would we have left? Not much, and not enough to justify an article. I do note that User:Fram points us to some additional sources, but how many sources will cover the subject itself, and not merely its products or headquarters. I don't know, but if nothing was added in more than five years, it becomes reasonable for us to assume that nothing substantial will ever be added. On a final note, the NASDAQ lists more than 3,000 companies; fewer than a third of them have their own article here. I see nothing to suggest that the instant company should have one, either. NewYorkActuary (talk) 19:16, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 16:52, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Fram, mostly. Companies with $1 billion in sales certainly are notable and have to have some media coverage. Copyright and promotionalism are editing issues, not a notability issue. shoy (reactions) 19:08, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~keep and remove unsourced materials - should just remove the unsourced content and pare the article down to match the sources. DangerDogWest (talk) 19:33, 22 October 2015 (UTC)~~[reply]

Done, by which I mean that I've removed (i) the copyright-violating sections, as well as (ii) the unsourced brochure-like material masquerading as a "business profile". I also added two of the sources pointed out by User:Fram -- the brief article about the subject's new headquarters and the regional award. As for the two trade publication cites, one was for a new product and the other simply told us that (gasp!) the subject would no longer be manufacturing chill rolls. Neither was of encyclopedic interest. And what we have left is a brief description of what the subject makes, as well as a brief listing of industry awards. The items in the various searches done by the nominator produce nothing that could be added, as those searches were overwhelmingly cites to press releases (such as quarterly earnings reports) or listings in business directories (but if I've missed something, please let me know). In all, I don't see how this article could ever be expanded with sources other than the company's web site, its press released, or its SEC filings.
Since my last posting, I did a little research about the notability of the $1 billion in annual revenue that is being cited by User:Fram and User:Shoy. The Fortune 500 web site tracks more than 500 companies and I found that Rexnord (number 966 on their list in annual revenue) and Seventy Seven Energy (number 967) both have annual revenue in excess of $2 billion, and neither has a Wikipedia article. One billion dollars in sales certainly sounds like a lot, but it isn't an amount that automatically confers encyclopedic notability. NewYorkActuary (talk) 18:31, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Struck content from confirmed sock above, per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:53, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Fram (talk · contribs). Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Publicly traded corporations says (my bolding):
There has been considerable discussion over time whether publicly traded corporations, or at least publicly traded corporations listed on major stock exchanges such as the NYSE and other comparable international stock exchanges, are inherently notable. Consensus has been that notability is not automatic in this (or any other) case. However, sufficient independent sources almost always exist for such companies, so that notability can be established using the primary criterion discussed above. Examples of such sources include independent press coverage and analyst reports. Accordingly, article authors should make sure to seek out such coverage and add references to such articles to properly establish notability.
Editors coming across an article on such a company without such references are encouraged to search (or request that others search) prior to nominating for deletion, given the very high (but not certain) likelihood that a publicly traded company is actually notable according to the primary criterion.
There are numerous analyst reports about Nordson Corporation: 1^WebCite, 2^WebCite, and 3^WebCite are several examples from the Google News search.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Nordson Corporation to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 04:58, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Cunard: Thank you for providing the context in which our decision must be made. I expect that you and I will simply disagree on this nomination. But for the benefit of the other participants in this discussion, it is fair to point out that your three cites are merely reports on various short-term stock-price predictions, along with various buy/sell/hold recommendations. We also learn the expected date of the next quarterly-earnings report, and we are told of a routine filing with the SEC regarding stock transactions made by an officer of the company. None of this has encyclopedic value. In the spirit of honest inquiry, I ask -- Can you point us to anything in those three cites that would increase the encyclopedic value of the article? NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:31, 1 November 2015 (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.