Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crosfield Electronics

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 speedy keep. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:34, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Crosfield Electronics

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing

Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. " It was deprodded by User:Rich Farmbrough with the following rationale "No problem, this is a notable company.". Sadly, Rich hasn't added any new source to justify his claim. All I see in Google Books and such are passing mentions, and few business-as-usual press-releases style notes on acquisitions or such. This sub-stub is still unreferenced and fails to prove its notability, aside of Rich's assertions. We need sources, I am afraid. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:52, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:59, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:59, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:59, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I have added several references to the article. See also the detailed company history in a book chapter on "Crosfield, Olivetti, EMI et les autres" of which pages 226-7 are visible in Google Books. Overall, I think there is sufficient substantial, independent coverage to meet
WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 08:12, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Withdrawing. [1] seems reliable (if niche) and in-depth. This seems sufficient to address notability concerns. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:02, 11 September 2018 (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.

Note: The de-prod was here with a completely different edit summary. There is an accompanying section on the talk page, which supports notability. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:18, 12 September 2018 (UTC).[reply]