Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Castolin Eutectic

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) Toadette^Edit! 23:49, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Castolin Eutectic

[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)

This article has had maintained tags on it since 2019. While some promotional language has been removed, the article still only cites primary sources. Since the notability has been in question for 5 years, I think it might be time to review whether this article should remain. TornadoLGS (talk) 17:49, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. TornadoLGS (talk) 17:49, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Switzerland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:03, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Enough coverage in WW2 era trade magazines, this type-written report on the company [1] in particular gives details on them. Some coverage in Swiss newspapers, this [2] and [3]. Scientific testing on some of their products [4]. Oaktree b (talk) 00:02, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article needs to be revised, several links should be added. But the organization's technologies are important and noticeable in the context of the industry.--Assirian cat (talk) 09:50, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked for spamming. MER-C 09:55, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 01:24, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment lacks sufficient independent, reliable sources to verify the notability of the company, resulting in an article that is largely promotional in nature.--Assirian cat (talk) 07:17, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article needs improvement, but there are enough sources to keep the article. [5] is a (fully-available) Google Books result talking about the company's products in the US during WWII, there are dozens of similar references (intermingled with dozens of their ads in magazines in the 20th century) in Google Books. Walsh90210 (talk) 23:43, 21 May 2024 (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.