Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mechanical Plastics Corp.

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. Unanimous keep. (non-admin closure) MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 00:13, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mechanical Plastics Corp.

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

The claims are unverifiable. The references do not contain the cited material even the name of this company. Iniciativass (talk) 18:26, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Do not agree with the nomination. The company is mentioned in reliable source here. Article needs major update, but looks to me that is passes WP:GNG and WP:CORP. --BiH (talk) 23:46, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is just a passing mention of the company for making plastic anchors.Iniciativass (talk) 05:45, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Nom seems perhaps mistaken. Explanation for at least one of nominator's complaints is that the name of the company is found in the 2nd, continuation, page of an on-line article, which you wouldn't find in a quick text search of the linked source. E.g. this continuation page of a New York Times article cited in the article provides quote about the company exporting to 24 countries, and actually quite a bit more. I added a direct link to the continuation page into the reference, though the reference was NOT wrong. Also, reference #11 and other references are off-line sources. Off-line sources are FINE, we do not require on-line sourcing of everything. Those sources are in fact verifiable, just requiring more work than simply looking on-line in the open free internet (could well be verifiable behind paywalls, and definitely verifiable at a library with a hard copy). So, although I am not reviewing all the sources to find proof that every assertion is indeed supported, I expect everything is or was supported. --do ncr am 03:13, 21 July 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.