Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nash Engineering 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 no consensus. Davewild (talk) 15:31, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nash Engineering Company

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

Absolutely nothing good to suggest independent notability with the best results of my searches here, here and here. At best, out of the linking articles, I think this could be moved to Lewis H. Nash. SwisterTwister talk 06:16, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Arr4 (talk) 07:17, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 14:02, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree with nominator. This article would be good on the company's about us | history page, but there is nothing that rises to the level of WP:ORG criteria.--Rpclod (talk) 02:34, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Nash Liquid Ring vacuum pump is widely used in industry and there are lots of secondary sources verifying that the Nash Engineering company developed this important item of mechanical engineering equipment. I have added references to support the article Wayne Jayes (talk) 16:49, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A couple of searches rapidly established that the Nash Vacuum Pump really was a thing, a significant thing in 20th century industry, a version continues in production. Thanks to User:Waynejayes, it now has some reliable sourcing. More could be done to improve the article, certainly, but that is not a quesiton for AFD.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:44, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:10, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as passing WP:GNG. VMS Mosaic (talk) 23:54, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
DGG Care to comment? SwisterTwister talk 05:13, 2 August 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.