Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old Town Canoe

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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 speedy keep. No remaining deletion !votes, nomination was procedural. Fences&Windows 03:08, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Old Town Canoe

edit
Old Town Canoe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

So as to avoid the article being speedily deleted. Candleabracadabra (talk) 22:23, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete one minor reference in a small-city local newspaper does not meet WP:GNG or WP:CORP. Contrary to the author's belief, an article at AfD can be subject to speedy deletion, although this one does not meet any of the CSD criteria. However as it is about a non-notable company, this article should be deleted Since the author has now added sufficient sources to show notablity. Sparthorse (talk) 22:33, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete per Sparthorse. Keep per sources cited below. NawlinWiki (talk) 22:40, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete lacking depth of coverage and the newspapers relied upon for referencing are not sufficiently 'major' to assert notability. Fails the WP:GNG Pol430 talk to me 23:38, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Has anybody actually looked for sources? A quick search using Google news uncovered over 600 hits, mostly from New England-based newspapers (not just Bangor, Maine) with a few from other areas. It's also been profiled on national media such as NPR and the Discovery Channel. The company is over 100 years old, and I consistently see it referred to as one of the "iconic companies" of Maine (example here). Clearly, it meets WP:CORP], and I'm surprised that it was nominated for deletion at all. Zeng8r (talk) 00:40, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The current article may lack sufficient references, but this is an established and well-known company that easily passes WP:CORP. In particular, note this from WP:CORP policy: "A primary test of notability is whether people independent of the subject itself (or its manufacturer, creator, or vendor) have actually considered the company, corporation, product or service notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial, non-routine works that focus upon it." In the case of Old Towne Canoe, consider these published works:
Book about the history of Old Towne Canoe Company, published in 2003
They Still Make Canoes Like They Used To, New York Times 1981 These two alone should be sufficient. --Crunch (talk) 01:15, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Crunch and Zeng8r beat me to it. The one source that's referenced in the article itself discusses the historical nature of the facility. Built in the late 19th century, it appears to have tremendous importance to the reason - primarily in a historical light. This meets the standard discussed above of "independent" verification. Additionally, even if this were not to meet that standard under some light, the fact that so many people in that region find the place important, as confirmed by the many articles discussing it, should be enough reason to include the article. Lord Roem (talk) 01:46, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Per Crunch. This company passes WP:CORP because it is old and well-mentioned in both newspaper and books. In additions, the referenced phrase "Old Town is the largest and best known American canoe manufacturer" alone should be more than enough for establishing this article's notability.--AM (talk) 01:48, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:04, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Ok, I don't like to get on my soapbox and lecture adults, but I feel this needs to be said. Cases like this point out a serious problem in the deletion discussion process, whether it's an article or an image or whatever. There are a group of users who are very concerned with notability and/or fair use issues. While I don't personally worry about these things so much, I understand that they're making a good faith effort to improve the project. However, sometimes these users are so concerned about furthering the cleaning process that they'll automatically support pretty much any deletion proposal without bothering to do any research or even read the arguments of other users who disagree.

In this case, I have to commend several users for changing their opinion when more sources were discovered, as I've been involved in several deletion discussions in which very reasonable objections were ignored, and the item was (unjustly, imo) killed by a metaphorical angry mob. On the other hand, why was this article nominated for speedy deletion in the first place? And why did the first few contributors rubber-stamp approve the deletion proposal w/o doing any research? And they obviously didn't do any research, because I'd never heard of Old Town Canoes and it literally took me under a minute to discover that the company most definitely meets notability guidelines. Let's be careful out there, people; these articles' lives are in our hands... Zeng8r (talk) 20:43, 6 January 2012 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Old_Town_Canoe&oldid=1144342387"