Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lokring Technology

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 no consensus. There are certainly valid concerns regarding the independence of the sourcing, but it is not entirely unreasonable to consider the United States Council of International Business source to be a valid one. It is arguably enough for the verifiability requirements to be met, and deleting on grounds of notability would require a consensus, something that I cannot see here. Sjakkalle (Check!) 18:13, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lokring Technology

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

Following up on the restored biographical article on this firm's chairman (restored at the request of someone at the firm), I sought references that could confirm the firm's notability. I have added a basic Bloomberg overview to the article but have not found substantial discussion of the firm (via Google, Highbeam, Questia), so while the firm clearly exists and trades, it appears to fall short of the WP:CORPDEPTH criteria. AllyD (talk) 20:15, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. czar · · 22:05, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. czar · · 22:05, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. czar · · 22:05, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - My searches only can confirm the company exists. There is no significant coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 17:03, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I considered merging / redirecting this article to William Lennon as an alternative to deletion as Lennon is the president and CEO of the company. However, I could not find anything to establish Lennon's notability either and have nominated that article for deletion. -- Whpq (talk) 17:18, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - As you can see, new sources have been added to ensure validity to the company. They include government, and very well known companies in the oil and gas field such as Exxon Mobil. These were not articles that were created by the company by any means but can be used to ensure that credible information has been provided. Preceding insigned comment by User:DarienR
- Reply - verifiability is not at issue here. It is a question of whether inclusion criteria are met. Please see WP:CORPDEPTH. -- Whpq (talk) 17:02, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - Are you able to view the page now and let me know if it seems to be informative and inclusive enough? DarienR (talk) 18:26, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 01:35, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'd like the article to have its information reviewed. I've basically redone the page using credible and informative data on the company. DarienR (talk) 21:06, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep and Comment. I voted to Delete the William Lennon article, and stand by that. On the company, the new links barely pass in my view, and there is a bit of WP:INHERIT such as in the USCIB piece. But, the longevity of the firm is real, and coverage may be harder to find simply because its technology is specialized.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 12:14, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - I'm not understanding how the USCIB piece is WP:INHERIT. The documentation is not validating that Lokring is a real company, but rather validating that they have ran their own tests on Lokring's products and are sharing their results with the public. DarienR (talk) 17:46, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Wikipedia's guidelines for inclusion of an article are related to, but separate from verifiability. While the information and references added into the article may be "credible and informative data on the company", what is needed to establish that an article should be on Wikipedia is whether the company has received significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The reliable sources would be things like newspapers and magazines. Although not all Wikipedia editors would agree with me, in that list I would include trade magazines or specialty media. I have reviewed the sources, and I do not believe they are sufficient to establish that article is justified. My analysis of the sources is below.

Source analysis

Bloomberg Business Week is providing simply a directory entry. Does not establish notability.
INC 500 simply names them on a list with no actual coverage.
Fundinguniversse pulled this out of International Directory of Company Histories, Vol. 40. St. James Press, 2001. which is a directory, but in any case, Lokring is just a passing mention as the entry is for Wabtec.
California Air Resource Board is some sort of regulatory agency so this doesn't establish notability, only verifies the certification.
Rigzone appears to be a specialty/trade web site. But the article is written by an employee of Lokring and thus is not an independent source
Lokring's site is a primary source
United States Council of International Business has a role of business promotion so I don't see this as independent coverage.

As such, none of the sources are useful for establishing that an article for Lokring should be included on Wikipedia. This is not a judgment on whether the company is a good one. It simply is about having the coverage needed per WP:ORGDEPTH, and WP:GNG. -- Whpq (talk) 18:34, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Where I would depart is in the characterization of the United States Council for International Business. It is not an ad agency if that is what you imply. It does trade promotion in the sense of public policy, not marketing. Even as such it has plenty of targets to choose from, and it is an endorsement that Lokring got featured. The piece is also evidence that Lokring is credible as a technology company company and with a demanding customer such as ExxonMobil. Enough for me.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 12:40, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can see your position on the USCIB utility as a source, although I don't completely agree. However, that still represents only one source when we would expect to see more to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 12:51, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - Do you have a business page for a similar company that is "Wikipedia" approved that I can use as a reference? The "USCIB" article was written by a professor at Dartmouth University and is a very informative and detailed analysis of how Lokring and ExxonMobil (which is a very well known company in the oil and gas field) have been working together for years. The Rigzone article may have been written by a Lokring employee, but the Rigzone magazine is a very reliable resource in the oil and gas field. I'd like to have a reference to how an oil or gas company should be listed in Wikipedia because we do reference our Lokring Wikipedia page quite frequently to provide information on what different technologies are offered in the oil and gas field and also to provide insight on our company's history. DarienR (talk) 19:03, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Whpq's analysis. Binksternet (talk) 19:09, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Still waiting for a reply on what oil and gas company I should reference on Wikipedia. I'd like to have some sort of guidelines that I can follow so that I can edit the page accordingly. DarienR (talk) 13:21, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - I suggest you drop by the Teahouse and ask for editting help. -- Whpq (talk) 13:43, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply - Is the deletion going to occur soon? I would like as much time as possible to make the necessary changes to the article once I find out what more information I can add. I've found a few more articles that I can add but I'm going to do some research using Teahouse to figure out the best way to make those changes. -- DarienR (talk)) 17:50, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Reply - If the article is not ready yet, there are options available allow the article to be further developed. It can be userfied. An administrator can make a copy of a deleted article available as a subpage in your user space to be worked on until it is ready to be moved back to article space. Another alternative is WP:incubation which is similar but the article is more accessible and visible to other editors for assistance. -- Whpq (talk) 18:22, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Reply - I've been looking through the oil and gas pages trying to figure out what information I could add. Can I request that the page not be deleted yet? I'd like some more time to make some changes to it. Thank you very much in advance! DarienR (talk) 18:45, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - What you want to do is read Wikipedia:Userfication. That guideline tells you to put the text into your own user space to be worked on in private. It will be tagged as a work in progress so that it does not try to serve as an alternate encyclopedia entry. Binksternet (talk) 22:06, 10 May 2013 (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.