Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NCI Building Systems

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. Mojo Hand (talk) 02:36, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NCI Building Systems

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

A CSD A7 was removed without addressing the issues. No indication of significance or importance. Being a public traded company does not assert notability. Routine stock market reports, corporate listings, press releases, and primary sources. Fails WP:GNG, WP:ORG, and WP:ORGDEPTH. WP:NOTYELLOW. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:20, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: This article is one of around 62 mass produced from stock exchange listings. All either PRODed now, or those that have run their 7 days at AfD have been deleted. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:20, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article appears to have been assembled over available sources and is little more than a list of announced routine corporate activity. Nothing indicates that the firm is notable as per WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 08:00, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:47, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:47, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:47, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All of the approximately 1,000 NYSE companies are notable (can anyone find an exact number?) ; it's a reeasonable place to draw a line. (there are > 2,000 different shares traded, but some companies have multiple shares) . The articles which were from companies just of the NASDQ generally should be deleted (though some such companies are notable as well) , but the NYSE listing is relatively elite. WP needs more content of this sort, and a similar areticle should be written for each such company. This would give fewer valid opprtunities to the paid editors. 'DGG (at NYPL)' (talk) 20:16, 6 January 2014 (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) 04:40, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A little more work will bring it to WP:GNG. Some of the annual report cites need to be replaced with Hoover's cites as suggested by WP:LISTED (will try to do later). There are already enough independent sources to meet WP:ORGDEPTH. I don't see how WP:NOTYELLOW even applies here? VMS Mosaic (talk) 06:13, 8 January 2014 (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) 04:40, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are thousands of mentions of the company in Google Books. If you want GNG coverage look for example in Gale's International Directory of Company Histories, where the company has a chapter. Hoovers' also has briefer history of it online. Someone not using his real name (talk) 08:01, 24 January 2014 (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.