Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wentworth Wooden Puzzles

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. Just about scrapes through based on coverage Siawase found, I think. Stifle (talk) 10:59, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wentworth Wooden Puzzles[edit]

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

Company article which fails the notability criteria at WP:CORP. Only reference is a newspaper advertorial from 1998. Article, which reads like an advert, was created by what seems to be a single-purpose account. Simple Bob^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 12:26, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Spam. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 16:31, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:ORG. Jay-Sebastos (talk) 07:16, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Independent piece [1] (already in the article) certainly is an in-depth RS. [2] is a very short article on an award. [3] is a BBC article where the last third is about the company. [4] uses the company in a case-study. [5] and [6] are brief mentions. I'd say the first three count toward WP:N and the last three show some wider (though minor) coverage. Hobit (talk) 19:46, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have to disagree. The first link is an advertorial. The second is for an award that doesn't warrant its own page on wikipedia and the third is about something completely different, not the company itself. --Simple Bob^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 22:56, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On link #1, are you claiming The Independent was paid or for this article? If so, could you show how you know this, and if not, could you clarify what you mean? On #2 the _coverage_ of the award is relevant, not having an article here doesn't really matter as far as I know. #3 _is_ relevant because the last third is solely about the company. It's about it's Internet needs and problems getting them in a rural setting, which is as good as any other context. Hobit (talk) 13:56, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep: I have added Hobit's links to the article's references section for future use. May have a bit of problem with the Single Purpose account (probably someone associated with the company?) But the company does seem to be mildly notable. VikÞor | Talk 00:37, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
keep: I created this wiki page, and it is the first time I have made one. I'm not sure what sort of licensing rules apply for products images (which are in the viewers interest)and it was difficult to find many references. I tried to copy other pages with licensing and format but obviously this didn't work as it is up for speedy deletion. Wentworth Wooden Puzzles are a very reputable UK company and should have a wikipedia to show this. Can anyone help edit it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lukewilliam (talk • contribs) 16:13, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
keep:The first use of laser cutting in the industry must count for some notability for inclusion in Wiki. Wiki has many articles about companies such as EEstor who have not even made a product! Francis E Williams (talk) 11:00, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: More sources: one paragraph coverage in Newsweek[7] and The Times.[8] Siawase (talk) 15:09, 1 March 2011 (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.