Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Electric Time Company

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. (non-admin closure) Alexnia (talk) 14:45, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Electric Time Company[edit]

The article does not establish the notability of Electric Time Company. It is poorly written as well. Wissembourg (talk) 19:40, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-Just because it does not establish notability or it is poorly written does not certify deletion. Instead of putting it up for AFD, why not fix it instead? Poor argument put up by nominator. ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ ^{Drop me a line} 19:47, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, the article could be rewritten. But is it worth it? The question is whether Electric Time Company occupies a notable place in the history of clock-making, or contemporary American manufacturing, or some other relevant category. Nothing that the article mentions (the size of the company's current facility, its date of foundation, the fact that it has been featured in a Boston magazine, etc.) indicates that this is the case. Wissembourg (talk) 19:55, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems notable to me, even if the notability is not well established as the article is currently written. Is certainly not advertising, and seems to meet the notability guidelines. Theseeker4 (talk) 19:58, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Notable company as shown here [1]. With regards to the article itself, yes it needs a rewrite, which I will start on in the next couple of days, however, that is not a reason to bring to Afd. ShoesssS ^Talk 20:21, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. "the fact that it has been featured in a Boston magazine" means that it passes the general notability guideline. -- Eastmain (talk) 20:56, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Needs massive rewrite, but is otherwise fine. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 21:30, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Extremely weak rationale. Nom even admits that the subject is notable. The article clearly has potential, and that is all that is necessary for the article to stay on this site. SashaNein (talk) 21:45, 10 November 2008 (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.