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The result was Withdrawn. I'm ignoring Smerdis's !vote because it is bias like most of his !votes. Joe Chill (talk) 20:31, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eagle Electric[edit]

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

I can't find significant coverage for this company. Joe Chill (talk) 16:20, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I added some references. - Eastmain (talk) 18:48, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. _{- Eastmain (talk) 18:48, 19 December 2009 (UTC)}[reply]
Delete, weakly. After Eastmain's work, this is now a model for what an article about a business ought to look like. But what are their claims to fame? True, they made tangible goods and used to have a physical presence in the form of a billboard that was a local landmark. They've been around since 1920, and there was a strike in 1938. Now they're just a shell brand selling goods made overseas and the billboard is gone. I'd be happy to defer to the judgment of others if they think this story is remarkable enough to support an encyclopedia article, but I am not really convinced. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 01:13, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment'. I think that the company was once notable, when it employed lots of people and was manufacturing specialized products that had to be better or more cost-effective than competitive products (or else nobody would have bought them), and having once been notable, it still is. Perhaps someone once published comparative reviews of Eagle Electric's products versus those of competitors, or the company obtained a patent and derived a competitive advantage from it. There must be more to the strike and the union organizing campaign that led up to the creation of the union local there than just the New York Times story about the arrest of the picketers. In fact, when I am researching an article about a company, I know that I am just seeing the top of the iceberg when I am relying on what I can find online. So even if the company and its building had vanished entirely, I would argue that once notable, always notable. - Eastmain (talk) 02:20, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The articles cited show it was once notable, and that is sufficient. DGG ( talk ) 03:59, 21 December 2009 (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.