Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Troy Industries

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 no consensus. WP:NPASR per relatively low participation herein. The discussion is largely based upon aspects that are secondary in nature, rather than based upon the overall notability or non-notability of the company. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:41, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Troy Industries[edit]

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

Lack of significant coverage by reliable third party sources. Doesn't appear to pass WP:CORP Niteshift36 (talk) 18:01, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:49, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:49, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:42, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yellow Dingo (talk) 06:34, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just delete it already. The article is three sentences long and nobody cares enough about it to even comment.--RAF910 (talk) 14:07, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Check out WP:TOOSHORT. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:54, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:55, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I restored a source that was removed from this article by the nominator on the same day (about one minute before) this AfD was started. Per WP:LR: "Do not delete cited information solely because the URL to the source does not work any longer. Verifiability does not require that all information be supported by a working link, nor does it require the source to be published online," but rather merely that it exists.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 20:59, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're correct that all sources don't have to be online. So I'll just take your word for the content. Did you read the source? Did it say what the article claims it supports? When you are willing to say yes to both, feel free to restore it. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:09, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's not how it works. I reverted your removal of the source which is not supported by the relevant guidance, hence the restoration of the source should stand. Additionally, it should be assumed the author (i.e. Excusable) who added the source acted in good faith until proven otherwise. —Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 05:17, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it is how it works. The editor that put the article there has been absent from Wikipedia since 2009. He obviously isn't verifying anything. What it allegedly supports is the mention that they were being considered for a govt. contract (that they didn't get), which isn't that significant. You clearly haven't seen the source. Who is verifying it? The "relevant guidance" isn't policy or even a guideline, it's a mere how-to manual. I'm not removing it because it's not available online, I'm removing it because nobody can verify it. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:32, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I fundamentally disagree. We assume good faith that the link worked and was verified at the time to support the content by whomever added it until proven otherwise. There are plenty of sources used in articles that aren't readily available for veiwing, that is not grounds to remove them.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 19:48, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, we don't have to trust a new editor that created an article 7 years ago and then left so blindly that we leave sources that nobody else has seen or verified and require proof to remove it. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:32, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep per my comments above and below.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 05:17, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Because an article that you haven't read mentioned that they were being considered for a contract that they didn't get? Since you haven't seen the source, you have no ability to decide whether or not the coverage is significant, as required by GNG. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:32, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My weak keep is based on procedural grounds. Quite frankly: I find removing references that are not clearly unreliable from an article then directly proceeding to nominate it for deletion distasteful at the least. If the references are not sound, it will be deleted anyway, hence it is unwarranted to remove them.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 19:35, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So, in other words, you're !voting keep because you don't like what I did. That should invalidate your vote on its face. There's nothing to find distasteful. I edited the article, removed what needed to be removed and looked at what was left that was verifiable and significant. What was left clearly didn't pass GNG, so I nominated it. That's the order things happen in and your actions have been in bad faith. You've implied that I did something wrong (or at least improper), edit warred to return a source that you've never seen, can't verify and have no idea if it supports the claim or not (and used the essay BRD like it's a policy)...... then you admit that you voted to keep just because you don't like what I did? Amazing. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:29, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you did "something wrong (or at least improper)" in respect to WP:LR, and more generally WP:AGF, (especially when the subsequent deletion nomination is taken into account) as I've outlined above. Therefore, my !vote is valid, and not simply "because [I] don't like what [you] did".—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 02:37, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I did nothing wrong. If you can find a policy I violated, I insist you take it to ANI right now. We both know you won't because we both know I didn't violate any policy. The best you can come up with it your personal perception that my timing doesn't mesh with what you interpret some essay as saying. LR isn't a policy. It's merely an essay. Yet you keep acting like Moses carried them down himself. AGF isn't a suicide pact. I have no reason to assume that an editor who came here solely to create some articles for companies and leave was 100% accurate. That's why we have the V policy in the first place. Your vote should be invalidated and hopefully the closing admin will realize that you have stated that you voted keep solely as a procedural move because you don't like my timing rather than an actual belief that the company passes GNG. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:35, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

keep. Passes gng. Made notable gun parts. 2607:FB90:249C:E1F9:F75A:1CEE:51ED:C48E (talk) 04:09, 9 July 2016 (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.