Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mold Masters

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. Geschichte (talk) 19:04, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mold Masters

[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)

Plastics manufacturer which does not appear to have attracted significant coverage of any kind. Should probably be redirected to what appears to be the mother organization, Hillenbrand Inc, if we had an article on that. Used to be redirected to Milacron, which doesn't make much sense as that is just a sister business in the same group (and probably ought not to have an article itself, based on the run-of-the-mill sources provided). In absence of a sensible redirect target, I'd suggest deletion. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:32, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:32, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:32, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:34, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am not sure how a company that makes tool steel molds for injection molding is ever going to be notable... Unless something like Four Seasons Total Landscaping happens to them by accident. There was also a draft, Draft:Mold-Masters by the user that resurrected this article. --- Possibly (talk) 18:45, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not enough in-depth coverage to meet either WP:GNG or WP:CORPDEPTH. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:36, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Does not appear to be notable, and all sources currently cited are primary. A S U K I T E 17:27, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not enough coverage to pass general notability guidelines. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 03:39, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: sources are mostly from their own site. Webmaster862 (talk) 08:43, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I will add new sources please don't delete this page. I've been working to add more third party sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ktjiang (talk • contribs) 18:47, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete substandard sources that don't match the quality required for companies Diamondchandelier (talk) 12:39, 18 June 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.