Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lewis Machine and Tool 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 keep. One argument to delete besides nominator. Nominator withdrew. Non-admin closure. Jujutacular ^T · C 03:45, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lewis Machine and Tool Company

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

Delete, The only references here are the companies website. The user has attempted to make it come within wiki standards but I still thinks this lacks notabilty. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 17:21, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

TO be clear there are other sources but not really about the company. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 17:38, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - i cant find any sources either, fails notablility. Dwayne was here! ^♫ 17:29, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:23, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP I guess that I don't understand how this company doesn't have any notability? Could someone make this clear to me? All you have to do is make a quick search on google for LMT or Lewis Machine and Tool and you will easily find a handful of things that make this company notable. For instance their contract with the UK or the many products the USA military buy from them. They have played a key roll in the small arms industry in developing better weapons for our troupes, especially with their patented MRP. I admit that I am a new user here and I might not understand all that there is to know about Wikipedia, but I still stand by this article in saying that it shouldn't be deleted.--Iskor12 (talk) 12:09, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Two articles covered in the news in 20 years. [[1]]. That's my personal opinion on why it should go. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 13:37, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Search for "Lewis Machine & Tool".1 You will find at least 25 News articles for them.--Iskor12 (talk) 13:45, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can agree that the company should meet notability requirements. I'm not opposed to withdrawing the nomination. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:24, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Hell in a bucket. I know that you are only doing what you think is best for Wikipedia and I respect that. I would love to see this article Withdrawn from the nomination. Thanks--Iskor12 (talk) 17:04, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is notable in the firearms community JohnDLG (talk) 02:13, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep if the nom has agreed to withdraw, I'm fine with that. However, I can't actually verify many of the sources (they are pay-per-view archives) and a few seem like brief mentions only, but I'll AGF that most of them are solid. —fetch ·comms 06:30, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here are 2 last things that I would like to add.

LMT is one of the only weapons manufacturer's that still make the M203 Grenade Launcher.
(This is the main reason on why I believe that they are very Notable) They make the L129A1 rifle that is the UK Ministry of Defenses' first new infantry combat rifle in over 20 years.--Iskor12 (talk) 15:50, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — I HATE the way this is written, it's pretty much an ad as it sits. But the company is significant, it would seem. Carrite (talk) 19:44, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article needs additional work, but the company appears to be notable. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 19:56, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not the nicest article, but the company is notable, so should have an article. - EdoDodo ^talk 17:45, 23 May 2010 (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.