Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lingenfelter Performance Engineering

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, mostly on the grounds of the sources found by Lukeno94. They really should be worked into the article. Spinning Spark

Lingenfelter Performance Engineering

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

Fails WP:CORP. This company enjoys some press coverage in its locale as do many other businesses, but it does not stand out. There's nothing particularly notable about it. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 09:48, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 09:56, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep The ref presently in the article is not a local magazine; what others did you find that you judged insufficiently discriminating? DGG ( talk ) 22:41, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The ref presently in the article does not discuss the company in depth, or as a matter of fact, at all, as far as I can spot. The article is mainly about cars. Company's staff was mentioned in a brief passing, but not as the company, so even if he does have some notability, LPE is not necessarily so as per no inherited notability. "John Lingenfelter agreed to enlarge an all-aluminum SB2 ("small block, second generation") to a historic 427.6 cubic inches. " That's all there is to it in 3 pages of article, in other word, a mention as a mere service sponsor. Other coverage on this company, which you may search yourself is local papers in Indiana. Local papers are where many small businesses are expected to be mentioned.

Cantaloupe2 (talk) 02:19, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to John Lingenfelter, at least until acceptable sources can be found. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 09:14, 24 October 2012 (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) 13:18, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the article, as it stands at the moment, is poorly sourced and poorly layed out; the company IS relatively notable, however - Car and Driver have a few articles on a few of the vehicles [1], [2], [3], [4], as have Motorweek [5], AutoGuide [6], and Automobiles Review [7]. As to which of these are notable and reliable enough sources to use (surely Car and Driver is, at the very least?), well, that's for a more experienced editor than me to decide. Lukeno94 (talk) 17:59, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jenks24 (talk) 07:12, 3 November 2012 (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.