Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Spirit Arms


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 01:00, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

American Spirit Arms

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Lack of significant coverage by reliable third party sources. Doesn't appear to pass WP:CORP Niteshift36 (talk) 18:24, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:46, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:46, 17 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep - is a reliable secondary source that goes into enough detail about the company for it to meet the general notability guideline. — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 21:36, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I can't really see it, especially since the article isn't really about the company, it's about the lawsuit. If this is all the coverage, wouldn't we be sliding into WP:ONEEVENT area? Niteshift36 (talk) 16:59, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I understand what you're getting at, but no, that particular guideline only applies to individual people. — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 16:50, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I misspoke. How about WP:ROUTINE? Essentially, there is a lawsuit, some news coverage that there was a lawsuit (ie routine coverage) and essentially no coverage about the company itself, the subject of the article. This would be akin to a small tire shop suing Goodyear for a quality issue and because someone wrote the Goodyear was being sued, we now try to call the tire shop notable. If the lawsuit were some sort of landmark decision, of course that would be different. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:00, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
 * That guideline would apply if the article were about the event that the reference I provided covers, but it isn't, it is about a company. The company is addressed in that independent reliable source directly and in detail with more than a trivial mention making no original necessary. That allows the topic to meet the the general notability guideline, it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 17:55, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The source article has 5 paragraphs. 1 of those is about another company and one is the bank's response. One is an introduction, telling us who is involved (Am Spirit and BoA) and that there's a suit. 1 sentence of the second paragraph tells about the company and one paragraph is the response of the owner (one sentence). At the most generous, the article contains 3 sentences about the company. Since GNG says "significant coverage" and "...multiple sources are generally expected", I'm curious how a single source, devoting about 3 sentences to the topic, gets past GNG? Niteshift36 (talk) 19:37, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. North America1000 21:38, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete. I disagree that the Huffington Post article is enough to show that this is a notable company. It barely mentions the company. The company hasn't done anything remarkable or noteworthy. Felsic2 (talk) 15:03, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yellow Dingo (talk) 01:10, 25 June 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:14, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete The Huffington Post article is essentially about a "facebook post made by the owner of the company" and the company itself gets half-a-sentence coverage. I had a look and realised that other coverage about this company in questionable sources is essentially a rehash of the same. This fails WP:CORPDEPTH or WP:GNG which requires a significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 17:53, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete GNG says multiple sources, we maybe, but proabably not, have one.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:14, 10 July 2016 (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.