Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Interflex

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 and redirect to Ingersoll Rand. Randykitty (talk) 12:59, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Interflex

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

The article is waiting for the additional citations for verification since August 2008 and there is no one or reliable sources to sort it out. — CutestPenguin^Hangout 16:01, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Redirect to Ingersoll Rand (and add it to the list of corporate subsidiaries). It's real, and I can source that. Interflex was purchased by Ingersoll Rand during a well-documented slate of mergers. I'm uncertain whether there's sufficient reliable sourcing to warrant a standalone article, but the worst case is that it can live happily in its corporate parent's. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 22:51, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:02, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:02, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the only 3rd party resource is not one I would consider reliable. It is a web site dedicated to the life and works of a single person, Hugh Schonfeld, and founded apparently by him and his wife/companion. That is not enough for me to give this site "reliable" status. Other than that I can only find marketing materials, mostly on the Interflex web site. LaMona (talk) 23:28, 4 October 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, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:36, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significance coverage in secondary sources. --Fauzan^{✆ talk}_{✉ mail} 04:44, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:CORP, as per nom. and Fauzan. --Bejnar (talk) 20:26, 5 October 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.