Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Hunt and Sons
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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The result was Nomination withdrawn per the discussion below and improvements made while this discussion was open. I even removed the {{coatrack}} tag, which had been inserted about a month ago. Other tags remain in place, but the issues they point are in no way fatal. Non-admin closure. --Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 13:16, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
William Hunt and Sons[edit]
- William Hunt and Sons (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
Coatrack article allegedly about a company, but written like an ad for one of the company's products. Delete. Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 17:43, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:SPAM and WP:CORP. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 18:40, 23 December 2007 (UTC)per considerable improvements to article. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 23:27, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]- Keep. The WHS trowel is indeed popular among archaeologists for whatever reason. The article needs a little cleanup, but I'm not sure what the objection is to having information about a company's product in the company article. --Dhartung | Talk 21:55, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. This is written like a description of the companies products, not an ad, and is sourced. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:57, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If the article is kept, could it be moved to something like WHS archaeology trowel? That would take care of the {{coatrack}} tag. --Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 23:01, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment How is it in any way a coatrack to discuss a company's product in the article for the company? See AFDs galore for individual products which are concluded with a merge/redirect to the company. "Coatrack" is when you write an article about, say, the Texas Schoolbook Depository building to introduce your personal take on the JFK assassination. --Dhartung | Talk 00:51, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Most of the article is about that product, not about the company making the product as the title implies. --Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 01:19, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- See Wikipedia:COATRACK#What_is_not_a_coatrack. The products are the things that make a company notable. They are not a loosely affiliated bias topic. --Dhartung | Talk 05:57, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Most of the article is about that product, not about the company making the product as the title implies. --Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 01:19, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment How is it in any way a coatrack to discuss a company's product in the article for the company? See AFDs galore for individual products which are concluded with a merge/redirect to the company. "Coatrack" is when you write an article about, say, the Texas Schoolbook Depository building to introduce your personal take on the JFK assassination. --Dhartung | Talk 00:51, 24 December 2007 (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.