Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Avon Inflatables

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.  Sandstein  08:51, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Avon Inflatables (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. There are some mentions in the BBC, but nothing in-depth about the company that could establish notability. CNMall41 (talk) 01:09, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• WITHDRAW - Would ask the nomination be withdrawn. Despite the depth of coverage not being substantial, there are multiple independent sources which would allow this meet WP:CORPDEPTH.--CNMall41 (talk) 16:30, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:56, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:56, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:56, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails WP:NCOMPANY as written, WP:YELLOWPAGES entry. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:29, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This company has coverage in publications around the world. Meets WP:ORGCRITE and WP:AUD. Searching turns up a large number of sources: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] Mostly about it products, some about company management. Spending more time could easily turn up more. Gab4gab (talk) 17:46, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - "Spending more time" makes the assumption that I did not spend time to find the sources that you did. In fact, I saw each reference you listed above. If you note view the nomination again, you will see that it is not about being sources, but the depth of those sources. Most of what you presented are advertisements and the rest are brief mentions. We need more than brief mentions that verify the existence in order to show notability. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:25, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Plenty of sources out there that establish notability. Article is poor though. I reviewed every one of the links posted by Gab4gab above. It looks like the links were the result of a search for "Avon Inflatables". Some of the sources listed fail the criteria (an Ad!) but, that said, a number that meet the criteria such as the BBC news link and the multiple magazine articles. Thank you for putting in the work. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 11:53, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I did see these in fact, but they are all brief mentions and nothing that provides any details other than their existence. Maybe I am not seeing the same thing. Are you saying all of the ones you provided above meet WP:SIGCOV? --CNMall41 (talk) 17:25, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - The article in its current state does not pass GNG. There are very little sources cited. Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 23:28, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment & more sources The reason for deletion given was notability. Notability is determined by existing sources, not the current state of the article. The company produced products for consumer, comercial and miltary uses. There is a depth of coverage making it possible to write more than the brief stub that exists today. There are sources with more than brief mentions. The BBC article in particular is rather lengthy. Brief mentions should not be ignored. Articles written about inflatable boats during this company's years of production will frequently mention Avon Inflatables. That is an indication of notability. I suppose there will be differing views regarding whether a source is an ad. For example this [13] Great Gear article discusses inflatables in general and then goes into details about design distinctions of several competing brands including Avon. Doesn't look like an ad to me but I understand that opinions may differ. When I say that “searching turns up a large number of sources... spending more time could easily turn up more” I mean that by spending more time I could easily turn up more. Here are more sources:

This book contains a great deal of material on Avon including contributions to improved design features over the years. This book has a paragraph and more on Avon. This Crusing World has articles on RIBs (Rigid Inflatable Boats) that includes coverage of Avon. This Crusing World Guide To Inflatable Tenders article includes coverage of Avon. This book covers Avon Inflatables. This book mentions Avon Inflables in coverage of Materials for Inflatables and Hovercraft Designs. An article on factory expansion. Air polution article. US Navy inflatables order article. Dafen Park expansion article. Sources exist to expand the article. I believe there is more significant coverage not yet found. Gab4gab (talk) 16:36, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I added some content to the article today using additional sources. Gab4gab (talk) 16:52, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Gab4gab: My main issue is with difference between the amount of sources and the depth of those sources. There are many sources and there is no denying that fact. The problem is that these sources are mainly mentions of the company and not about the company itself. However, the criteria also says that if the depth is not substantial (which it isn't), then using multiple independent sources can establish notability. Based on your cleanup, those sources are now evident. Thanks for taking the time to do so.--CNMall41 (talk) 16:30, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Plenty of sources that establish notability.FFA P-16 (talk) 21:49, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per sources provided by Gab4gab. Nördic Nightfury 10:17, 24 March 2017 (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.