Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Albion Swords


 * 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. I think the arguments to delete far outweigh the arguments to keep. Deathphoenix ʕ 21:21, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Albion Swords
This entry fails to meet the requiremnts of WP:CORP. Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 01:52, 27 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete NN. Arbusto 03:17, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per my note here (in reply to a PROD tag put up recently). In short, the company "has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself." This includes two printed books I know of, a community driven consumer watchdog organization (in the form of individual reviews of purchases) and, while not nearly as significant but important for showing spread and breadth of notability, a number of online collectors and historical martial arts reconstruction based informational forums. From what I understand, the above criteria qualifies it as meeting WP:CORP standards. The article does need significant addition, however, as well as editing for 'advertisement' (as I also noted in the talk section). -- Xiliquiern 04:17, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * It still looks like an ad. If you have any news articles, a significant number of google hits, press mentions, court mentions, celebrities, etc. that would demonstrate notablity. Arbusto 05:17, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * How does it still look like an ad? I'd like to fix it, but no one has stated what about it makes it an ad - so far the article consists only of a corporate history and doesn't include any information at all about specific products, testemonials, or anything of that nature that could be considered biased. In fact, the advertisement page actually recommends adding more information about products and services, something I thought would have made it look even more like an ad. Also, I get 655,000 google hits with a search, and 962 with a "unique" search - I don't know what the magic number is for these, but that seems pretty high in general, with the unique search discounting a lot hits based on "Albion (sword name/type) Sword". I suppose even though it meets the criteria specifically as written, it's up to the communities interpretation of what really counts to decide what stays and what goes. Does that criteria page ever get changed or edited - it might be worth it to prevent future complication and misunderstanding.
 * Here's an article from the Union Tribunethat makes pretty good mention of them, in the first paragraph as an "eye catcher". -- Xiliquiern 11:34, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * That's a good start. WP:CORP states multiple news mentions. Arbusto 03:31, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, it states an article is notable if it meets any of the following criteria "This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, television documentaries, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations except for the following:
 * Media reprints of press releases, other publications where the company or corporation talks about itself, and advertising for the company.
 * Works carrying merely trivial coverage, such as newspaper articles that simply report extended shopping hours or the publications of telephone numbers and addresses in business directories."
 * We now have the two books published on historical combat reconstruction giving recommendation and information on the company, as well as members of its staff (Signmund Ringneck's Knightly Art of the Longsword and Knightly Arts of Combat - Signmund Ringneck's Sword and Buckler Fighting, Wrestling, and Fighting in Armor by Lindholm/Svard), that newspaper article, and the online publications of MyArmoury.com as a consumer-led watchdog organization (reviews of personally purchased products to inform others of their quality and worth). As far as I know, none of those fall into the category of reprints of press releases, self-promotion, advertising, or "trivial coverage" (telephone listing, etc) so there are currently 4 verifiable sources of notability. -- Xiliquiern 04:04, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Look, I am not going to argue over this. I explained what it lacks for me and others to vote keep. Arbusto 04:16, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
 * There was no intent to argue. I just wanted to collectively represent the sources that have been gathered - I actually thought you had overlooked the others and noted only the newspaper article, as you made no mention of the others at all, neither dismissing or confirming them. I now understand your position and hope you can see how I could have been confused and my reasons for clarifying. I am somewhat confused how one can ignore specifically mentioned requirements (published books) but that individualism and freedom of interpretation is what gives Wikipedia its character. -- Xiliquiern 04:22, 28 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom.--Peta 06:17, 27 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Weak Delete After researching I just don't think they are notable enough. Only 960 google hits, none of which are very significant.  Stubbleboy 11:46, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. As far as notability is concerned, this is a tough call that could go either way, but I'm inclined to be lenient.  The article I read didn't seem much like advertising, and was at least crystal clear about what the business sells; that puts it in sharp contrast to mere spam. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:41, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Appears to be a simple plug for the company.--Freddulany 21:43, 2 October 2006 (UTC)


 *  AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.  Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 14:28, 3 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete fails WP:CORP, nuff said. Eusebeus 15:17, 3 October 2006 (UTC)


 * 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.