Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Key Tronic

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. (non-admin closure) Left guide (talk) 21:22, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Key Tronic

[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 don't think WP:NCORP is substantiated here. Company appears to be an entirely ordinary keyboard manufacturer, with references consisting entirely of what seems to me to be WP:CORPTRIV covering the company's contracts etc. There's also a whiff of a WP:PROMOTIONAL tone including a suspected COI editor. Maybe the company's contracts to produce Microsoft's keyboards could be argued as notability but that's about the best I can come up with. Athanelar (talk) 21:23, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Companies, Technology, and Computing. Athanelar (talk) 21:23, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Keytronic made a lot of keyboards back in the day. Even some notable models - and individually notable keyboard models are a thing. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:26, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:24, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Refs 4,8,9, and 13 seem sufficiently independent and non-trivial. Coverage is a mix of business and product coverage, national and not just regional. I see no SURMOUNTABLE problem here. Jclemens (talk) 06:44, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In addition to the significant coverage pointed out above, reference 4 is a three-page comprehensive overview of the company's history in a book published by a reputable publisher (Gale). DigitalIceAge (talk) 18:31, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but the article might benefit from some clean up. CampingWithCigarettes (talk) 10:12, 6 November 2025 (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.