Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Eagle Manufacturing Company


 * 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. The arguments that this company has enough secondary published coverage to show notability are unconvincing. Kevin (talk) 04:00, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

American Eagle Manufacturing Company

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Current page is tantamount to being an attack page. It essentially recounts a long tale of legal battles, and rests mainly on uploaded images of a legal complaint against two named persons. This is a primary source. As far as actual secondary sources establishing notability, there is little, if any, attention to this company in the mainstream press. There are notices in the specialist business and financial media saying about 5 years ago the company's assets were being sold off and the name changed. It's unclear how this story of alleged financial misdeeds is notable or encyclopedic. Dbratland (talk) 03:48, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak keep but sanitize all legal stuff per BLP policy. These bikes do exist, right? not many of them, but they have a following, are bought and sold etc. Notability test should be based not on the organization itself, but on their products; and the article should deal with products firsthand. NVO (talk) 06:58, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

This company produced over 800 motorcycles and it was a popular brand that is still listed in the Kelly Blue Book, I used to own one of the bikes. Current legal action was removed.WPPilot (talk) 14:42, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Can you point out any secondary sources that establish notability as per Notability (organizations and companies)? --Dbratland (talk) 15:36, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/private/snapshot.asp?privcapId=658737 Business Week Magazine
 * http://www.kbb.com/motorcycle/trade-in/1999/american-eagle-motorcycle Kelly Blue Book 1999
 * http://www.kbb.com/motorcycle/trade-in/2000/american-eagle-motorcycle Kelly Blue Book 2000
 * http://www.kbb.com/motorcycle/trade-in/2001/american-eagle-motorcycle Kelly Blue Book 2001
 * http://www.kbb.com/motorcycle/trade-in/2002/american-eagle-motorcycle Kelly Blue Book 2002
 * http://AEMotorcycleVideo.netmediatec.net 1999 "factory" video


 * Is this enough?? WPPilot (talk) 17:40, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * No, not in my opinion. Those links only establish existence. Existence ≠ Notability.  Have any books or articles been written that show American Eagle meets the basic criteria of notability (specifically WP:COMPANY)?   The reason I nominated this for deletion (instead of just deleting the attack material) is that I found none.--Dbratland (talk) 18:02, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability

is Kelly Blue Book "Trivial" to you? Where do you live??? that is recognized the world over as the authoritative data source for ALL motor vehicles. During the dates listed above (before Wiki) that company was one of the big 3, after Harley and Big Dog: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Dog_Motorcycles The company had been in every motorcycle mag for years before the scandels that are listed. WPPilot (talk) 18:10, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not accusing Kelly Blue book of lying. The issue is that KBB doesn't say they are notable; they only confirm they made some motorcycles.    If American Eagle has been written about in every motorcycle magazine, it should be no trouble at all to cite some.  That's all I'm asking for.  --Dbratland (talk) 18:18, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, I've searched the following magazines, and none of them mention this company, even in passing:  American Motorcyclist, Cycle World, Cruising Rider, Rider, Dirt Rider, Motorcyclist, and Motorcycle Consumer News.--Dbratland (talk) 18:28, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I see 14 mentions in American Motorcyclist and 7 in Cycle World. Withdrawn per Dbratland's comments below. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:35, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Those are false hits. See below... --Dbratland (talk) 21:04, 9 October 2009 (UTC)


 * haha those are "Girly bike" mags !!! Try V Twin, or Easy Rider! We will post those today for you, Dbratland! WPPilot (talk) 12:18, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  So Why  08:50, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak keep - have removed the legal battle stuff because it was unsourced, but would still be good to see more sources to firmly establish notability. Gandalf61 (talk) 11:50, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Comment Uh, WPPilot, isn't that WP:BIAS right there, for calling a motorcycle magizine girly? I mean seriously. --Cleave and Smite, Delete and Tear! (talk) 13:41, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Existence =/= notability. --Cleave and Smite, Delete and Tear!  (talk) 13:41, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Google News search shows nearly a thousand hits on "American Eagle" + motorcycle, including this report that the company had become a publicly traded enterprise. In general, publicly traded companies will have sufficient coverage to satisfy the GNG, even though that coverage is not necessarily easy to find on the web.  Even allowing for the likely spurious hits in the news search, the company's business activities appear to have been covered in some detail eg    . Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:05, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:LISTED says notabilty is not automatic for publicly traded companies, *although* such companies usually have enough sources to establish notability. The cited articles indicate that the company has been bought and sold and had carried out various financial procedures.  All publicly traded companies do these same things, yet that alone does not establish notability.  All I'm asking for is for something that can tell me "This company is important because _______ " --Dbratland (talk) 15:47, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Already addressed in my comment, noting the substantial and sustained coverage of the company's activities. And the specific articles I cited included a report discussing the company's manufacturing plans. "All publicly traded companies do these same things" is really a relevant argument; one might as well argue for the deletion of all film actors who haven't won Oscars/whatever, since all film actors act in films, so that can't be a basis for notability. Not a sound argument. And the guideline you cite says specifically that "importance" is not the same as "notability," so that argument also fails. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:20, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Let me try again. What did this company do that was notable?  If this page is not deleted, what is the article going to say?  That the company existed, and was bought and sold?  That's the whole article?  (And not all actors act in films, and of those that do, not all films are notable.) --Dbratland (talk) 16:56, 8 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. Loads of reliable sources available here. Refutation accepted - I remain neutral as regards keeping/deletion. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:43, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Those are false hits. American Eagle Manufacturing Company was founded in 1995.  Most of the hits you've found are for the Laverda 750 "American Eagle" of the 1960s and 70s; most of the dates in the search results are before 1995. The article even mentions this under Other “American Eagles”.  Every single "American Eagle" hit you mention above for American Motorcyclist and Cycle World are either the Laverda, or something called American Eagle Publications.  There is only one exception, the highly ureliable Sonny Barger gives us only this chestunt:  "Titan, American Eagle, and American Illusion make what they call 'clone bikes,' and although some of these models are manufactured in America, they often don't make their own engines and are just copies of Harleys."  His opinions here don't establish notability.


 * The question remains: What is American Eagle Manufacturing Company notable for? Simple question.  --Dbratland (talk) 21:04, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * That's not a meaningful question, in terms of Wikipedia notability criteria. It meets the notability criteria because of the coverage of its business activities in multiple reliable sources, as I've cited previously I supposed you could answer that it's notable for its business activities. What is The Bodyguard from Beijing notable for? Or Leprechaun 2? Or The British Museum Is Falling Down? "Notable for" isn't really a meaningful concept when looking at Wikipedia notability, and would often call for a subjective answer. "Notable because" is the important concept. And what are Cocoa Puffs, French fries, Dog_food, and labradoodles notable for, other than being what they are? Your "simple question" really doesn't relate to any Wikipedia policy, and therefore neither do your deletion arguments. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:04, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Labradoodles, cocoa puffs, dog food and so on have all been part of thousands or even millions of people's lives for decades. If they had not existed, many people's ordinary lives would not be the same in all sorts of ways. Even non-users of these things recognize them instantly. They are part of the vocabulary.  They are notable for hundreds of things.  Leprechaun 2 and their ilk?  I'd probably support deleting them if all you showed me were articles saying they existed but never caused a ripple.


 * This is a company (alleged) to have made a total of 800 motorcycles. Ever. Today Harley-Davidson, which makes well over 200,000 bikes in a bad year, announced they were selling MV Agusta, which few people have heard of because it's a "boutique line" which, last year, made only 5,800 bikes.  In one year.  Which is over 7 times the number that American Eagle made during its entire existence.


 * When corporations get the usual snippets announcing mundane actions in the specialized financial press, that does not, to me, meet the basic criterion in WP:N "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources." That's insignificant coverage. Incidental coverage.  You get that just for existing.  I would compare it to various non-notable clubs and groups whose bowling tournaments and bake sales are listed in the events calendars of even major newspapers.  Some intern enters whatever you sent them into a calendar, but that doesn't meet WP:N.--Dbratland (talk) 02:40, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You're not really responding to the question, are you? You're just presenting your own idea of what notability should be -- causing "ripples" in the world, which is fundamentally subjective. There are about two dozen people in the world whose "ordinary lives" would be materially different if Paris Hilton had kept a low profile in life; are you endorsing deleting her article? Or are you proposing judging businesses by the same standards as celebrities? When a company's routine business activities are covered by the business press, like Business Week, that's solid evidence of notability. BW doesn't report on the routine activities of Joe's Fish Market or Jimmy's Dog Groomers or even Paris's Brandy Bistro. When you look at the press coverage of major corporations, 99.9% of what you see reported are "mundane actions." Dow Chemical doesn't get drunk at night, rip its shirt off, dance on a bar, and go home with Lindsay Lohan. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:56, 16 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - non-notable minor manufacturer. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  00:37, 16 October 2009 (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.