Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Wilkes & Co

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 Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:19, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John Wilkes & Co[edit]

OK this is an odd one. I can find scant evidence that this company exists: John Wilkes & Co. which sent me looking for other variations. John Wilkes Gun & Rifle Makers had a similar lack of results but turned up a directory listing (ignore the unrelaiability of Tripod for a moment) that provided the company had a website except it doesn't. Similar google searches didn't help. I found this, which asserts: The firm of John Wilkes, still in business and still operated by the Wilkes family, has built both shotguns and rifles for other makers. but I can't find evidence of this at all, other than directory listings. Oh and "John Wilkes" rifle is fairly useless due to a certain assassin with that name. So on that ground, I'm nominating this for deletion. I can't see it ever being more than a sentence without extra info. Travellingcari (talk) 21:02, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. The company seems to be defunct ca. 2004, with the store taken over by a successful gallery incorporating the sign painted on the building. You can actually search for this if you exclude search terms e.g. "-lincoln -booth". But I'm mostly finding listings and precious little actually written about the company or man. --Dhartung | Talk 21:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I found the former URL, which I mentioned in the nom, but not the fact that it apparently ceased to exist in 2004. A search for the address turned up Rifle Maker gallery but I couldn't ascertain whether it was another part of the saem building as I didn't find The Telegraph article, so thanks for that. I'm amazed that there seems to be precious little on an a company that existed for 150+ years. Travellingcari (talk) 22:03, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Joseph Brazier. I found a company listing beginning in 2004 with the same address and phone as the US office of Brazier. --Dhartung | Talk 23:07, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scratch that, they just seem to be the common US firearms license holder.[1] There's also evidence they're still active, per this 2005 interview on the Brazier website. --Dhartung | Talk 23:16, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

apparently there's such thing as a John Wilkes rifle, but sold by a different entity. I think that's where some of the confusion lies. Are they still active as a maker, or are these 2ndary markets? I'm inclined toward the latter since I don't know about new guns selling for $24K. I'd like to find some sources to write the article, if it's possible but at this point I'm not sure we can. Maybe if we both keep digging we'll find something. This actually makes me think Wilkes & Brazier were connected much earlier, search for the first instance of 'John Wilkes' - it's in the 1800s. Travellingcari (talk) 23:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yeah, it looks as though the founder of one was the apprentice of the other. I think the finefirearms.com link is reselling the gun in the interview I cited. Too bad the secondary sources aren't turning up, but I sort of assume there must be print gun magazines that have some information, which is why I'd like to preserve it as a redirect, but without an obvious target that looks kaput. --Dhartung | Talk 06:47, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Essentially agree, but I have a question. Why is it necessary to 'preserve' it as a re-direct? If someone tracks down information from print mags, or possibly very local un Googleified newspapers can't it be re-created? I'm definitely not saying this article should never exist, it could be a good historical profile if the company is proved notable, but I don't understand why we'd preserve one sentence. Am I missing something? Travellingcari (talk) 12:49, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete if it's this hard to figure out whether the company exists, it is clearly not notable. --Asmodeus Samael (talk) 00:10, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hey, they were around more than a century -- it's worth giving them a chance as they had a long period of existence before there was an internet. --Dhartung | Talk 06:47, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you find find a reliable source to back that up? --Asmodeus Samael (talk) 03:59, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, albeit weakly, cleanup some of the POV problems in this stub, and flag for expert attention. The existence of this manufacturer seems verifiable. They seem to be mentioned in the article on Lloyd rifle, but that article's link instead goes inappropriately to the eighteenth century politician John Wilkes. At any rate, this was a manufacturer of hard goods of a type that has collectors and hobbyists. Reliable sources for the claims made about this manufacturer, such as price guides that will list products and dates of manufacture, are likely available; it's a matter of finding them. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:08, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think price guides qualify as substantial coverage in reliable sources. Fails WP:CORP. --Asmodeus Samael (talk) 03:59, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with AS on price guides here, but my question is re: the POV -- I don't think it's POV so much as the first line of an 'about the company'. Everyone is the maker of 'fine quality...' something or other, even if it's 'fine quality toilet paper' Calling this a stub is a bit of a stretch, it's a sentence. Travellingcari (talk) 04:22, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Not sure I understand how price guides and similar materials are not reliable, third-party sources, at least for the sorts of information we could draw from them. They are published for the benefit of collectors who are highly interested in the subject, and are routinely relied on to judge the authenticity of antiques and other collectables. They more than adequately source the information we would draw from them, which would be a general description of the products made and the years a manufacturer operated. Fancy guns are the subject of a fairly extensive hobbyist trade. There should be something. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:52, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response my issue with that is whether price guides are encyclopedic at all. In order for this company to have an article we need to be able to say *something* about it from RS. I don't know if 'here's a chart of the value of their guns' is encyclopedic and or says enough about the company. Travellingcari (talk) 15:07, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response. The chart would verify statements that said "This manufacturer was active from date until date. They had these sorts of products in their product line." - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:18, 15 February 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.