Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Topflight Corporation

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. The "keep" arguments are weak at best, but no consensus for deletion has been formed here, despite several weeks of being open for discussion. No prejudice against a renomination sometime soon. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:43, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Topflight Corporation

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

This seems as if it may be notable but my searches simply found nothing better than this, this, this and this. This simply hasn't changed much since August 2008 and it was until some months into 2009 that BeenAroundAWhile tagged it. SwisterTwister talk 23:06, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:09, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:09, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 18:49, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I fixed some broken refs. It's definitely a manufacturing niche, but this company seems significant within that niche. Articles show it innovating processes and products. More about that would make the article better. LaMona (talk) 04:34, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - needs work, but enough is there. VMS Mosaic (talk) 05:07, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:10, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging interested subject users Dthomsen8 and DGG. SwisterTwister talk 20:44, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - No longer an orphan, and has one more inline citation. Perhaps needs more work, but significant in its field.--DThomsen8 (talk) 21:27, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. zero evidence of notability, Ref 1 is a directory listing. Ref 2 whose correct link is [1] is pure PR, consisting of quotes from the company's executives and nothing else, The other refs are also straight Pr or notices. Specialized trade magazines of this sort, though they may be the only available sources, are often not reliable for notability, as they tend to lack critical editing. LaMona, please take another look at the actual content of the references. DGG ( talk ) 22:35, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I still think keep. The refs are less promotional than most and they have some substance, at least. (There's more than just "Hey, we made a bunch of money!"). I'm seeing the technology itself as interesting -- but that may be just me. LaMona (talk) 22:41, 5 November 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.