Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edison Welding Institute

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. PeaceNT 08:38, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edison Welding Institute

Edison Welding Institute (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Non notable company/organization (not sure which one this is). Either way, only 3 google news hits, and two are press releases New England Review Me!/Go Red Sox! 02:08, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep Someone at a university with journal access is needed to improve and reference the article, but the subject seems notable. Google scholar has 510 articles, Google books 204 articles, for example [1], and ProQuest 55 documents providing many articles showing that this is the leading institute in North America on the science of joining materials. It is a joint effort of the government and university system of Ohio with industry. Edison 02:41, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep As described above, EWI appears to be notable based on its research impact. Unfortunately the welding community doesn't appear to be big on free web content, which makes sourcing difficult. I did manage to find sources from the New York Times, Businessweek, and two Columbus papers, which I've added to the article; the "Blue Collar Computing" project actually looks kind of interesting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Billgordon1099 (talk • contribs) 06:50, August 29, 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions. --Gavin Collins 12:24, 29 August 2007 (UTC)--
  • Keep. There seems to be a wealth of reliable secondary sources on this organisation (see here, and that's just from one news source). There seems to be a lot of notable information out there, so this article could easily be greatly expanded. —gorgan_almighty 14:15, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per, inter alia, this, this and this. David Mestel(Talk) 21:06, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Seems notable per sources. Thin Arthur 06:10, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per above. Bearian 00:00, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
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.