Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Homak Mfg. Co. Inc.

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 delete. Sandstein 11:08, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Homak Mfg. Co. Inc. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Article does not meet WP:GNG OR WP:NCORP / WP:ORGCRIT. Sources in the article do not have WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and in depth. WP:BEFORE showed nothing that meets SIGCOV.  // Timothy :: talk  10:28, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions.  // Timothy :: talk  10:28, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  // Timothy :: talk  10:28, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom and WP:MILL. There must be hundreds, if not thousands, of sheet metal manufacturers. Bearian (talk) 16:05, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearian: I appreciate your opinion, but Homak was not just a sheet metal factory among thousands of others, but the largest privately-owned factory in the US in that period. Media coverage, as we know it today, was not available back then. All media coverage this factory received is probably in the printed newspapers, which is not available for citations. I really tried my best to source it as much as possible, but since the company is defuncted it is quite hard to find sources your said are needed. --Swipex (talk) 17:58, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Draftify With some sympathy to Swipex's efforts to find sources, as an alternative to Deletion and on the assumption that Swipex and/or others might continue to look for more references, I recommend that the article is draftified to allow for more sources to be found. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:19, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@HighKing:: I found an interesting court case involving Homak, but I am not sure (and I can't find it in guidelines for reliable sources) if such sources are valid (https://caselaw.findlaw.com/il-court-of-appeals/1189146.html). The case was later cited in other verdicts, such as here, here and here. As I said, I did not paid such attention to this before, so I am asking you for an assistance on this. --Swipex (talk) 21:34, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Court cases might cause other publications to write good articles which establish notability, but the information provided about the company is often provided by the company itself and therefore is not "Independent Content" and fails ORGIND. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:57, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete If sources are found an article couldbe written, but I see no reason to assume they will be. [[User:Swi[pex|Swi[pex]], you state "the largest privately owned company", but the article only says, and the sources only document "as amongst the largest privately held sheet metal companies in the US... in the 1990s. " That's much less of a clai,/ DGG ( talk ) 00:29, 16 February 2021 (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.