Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Croker

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. Nobody has challenged Aoziwe's sources to suggest notability. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:24, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Croker[edit]

[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)

Does not meet WP:NCORP. The only source given is a dead link to a primary source (an interview). Searching only turns up other primary sources. Insufficient in-depth coverage in secondary sources. MB 04:53, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:44, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:45, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Do not have enough RS and IS to claimed WP:NCORP notability to merit a page in Wikipedia. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 09:58, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I have updated and increased the references that now range from national newspapers, The Land, to national radio, ABC Radio National. Is it not incumbent upon a nominator for deletion and those expressing an opinion to delete to look to improve references before and during an AfD? Castlemate (talk) 22:24, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Castlemate Thank you for adding the source, but - is a interview piece from radio station (info from subject not independent and reliable), is a blurb and I dont think the source is a major newspaper . Thank you. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 01:33, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Further and last comment I referenced the article because it was required and made a comment with out saying Keep or Delete so don’t turn your lazy AfD into an attack on me. I didn’t offer an opinion on purpose so as to avoid contact with editors such as yourself who see themselves as the source of all knowledge and wisdom and like to trash iconic national media entitities. If ABC Radio National is not an independenT source then I soppose The Land as a major National rural newspaper isn’t independent either and so no source will ever suit you. Just sit back and let the debate flow rather that bullying those who wish to help without dogma. Please don’t respond or mention my name again. Castlemate (talk) 08:10, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Interview piece is considered not independent as the info is taken from the subject. There is no attack of any sort of my comments. I just respond to the source type provided. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 08:49, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Following a just some of the indendent reliable sources I very easily found. All have some form of editorial overview, and range from secondary industry sources to professional organisations to sporting bodies to general media outlets.

Rowing Australia
The Land
coastbeat
ABC Radio
Dynamic Business
Engineers Australia
Manning River Times
Composites Australia

They demonstrate sustained, reliable, and independent coverage allowing a more in-depth article to be written. Article should be renamed to Croker Oars however. Aoziwe (talk) 11:17, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Aoziwe Aloneinthewild (talk) 14:13, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - being one of the two major manufacturers of competition rowing oars worldwide is a clear assertion of notability. Yeti Hunter (talk) 12:19, 7 March 2019 (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.