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. The discussion found that after cleanup, there were sufficient sources to establish notability. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 01:13, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indium Corporation[edit]

Indium Corporation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. I find lots of press releases, but effectively nothing in the way of secondary source coverage. There is the Time Magazine article, but from what I can see, it's about a scientist who later worked at this company, and not about the company itself. If someone with access to the whole article knows differently, then it could be a keep. agtx 01:22, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 01:40, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 01:40, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Tentative stub Ugh, why did I spend time cleaning up all that junk. Spammy articles filled with promotion and primary sources should just be deleted, but now that I've cleaned it up, there are a couple sources worth keeping and a half-decent stub. Still very open to deletion however if those are the only sources available. CorporateM (Talk) 07:27, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Good clean up. I also copy edited. The Business Week source is good, as is the Time source and the 2002 book. Interesting element; "indium was strictly a laboratory curiosity" until this corporation harnessed it. Prhartcom (talk) 04:27, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - seems to satisfy WP:BASIC. Although there are not a lot of in-depth articles, there are a ton of articles which mention this company in this very specific field. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:45, 14 August 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.