Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BrickArms


 * 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. (non-admin closure) ansh 666 21:52, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

BrickArms

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

PROD removed with the basis of the listed sources being enough for notability but this is all because the company was involved with a "terror" event or also because of its "LEGO designer", Will Chapman, and there's essentially nothing else. There's still nothing actually suggestive of convincing. SwisterTwister  talk  15:41, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  15:41, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 21:38, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. North America1000 21:39, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep – Meets WP:CORPDEPTH per coverage in book and news sources:, , , , , . North America1000 21:42, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep GNG is met, no convincing reason for deletion has been articulated. Jclemens (talk) 05:56, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Neutral -- Change from Delete; Original comment: The only claim of notability is the White Bandit so-called controversy; but this appears to be trivial and not meeting CORPDEPTH. Other than that, the article reads as advertorial: "Will ultimately choose to begin to design and produce his own, more accurate minifigure accessories, running the company from the Chapmans' garage in Redmond, Washington and packing orders in the family's bonus room.[5]". This subject does not meet GNG. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:52, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment: Compared to most of the "corporate spam" articles, this one has much better sourcing, and the company was profiled in a book by a Wired journalist, who calls it "the long tail of Lego". So I'm withdrawing my Delete vote. I'm still not sure if the coverage is sufficient for an encyclopedia entry, but compared to what passes for an article on Wikipedia, this is one of the better ones. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:30, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — UY Scuti Talk  16:36, 9 August 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete: If it wasn't for the one "bandit" product, there would be no coverage of this company. The Bandit product might be notable, but the company is not. Toddst1 (talk) 16:39, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — UY Scuti Talk  19:36, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep As k.e.coffman says above. this company has significant sources coverage. All I did was search google news here:  with this NPR feature at the top of the page: .  WP:BEFORE would have been a good thing to run before starting this AFD.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:01, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment to closer - Still none of the votes are addressing how and why this is independently notable from the attention for the LEGO connections and its LEGO-connected founder. Inherited notability is not applicable for articles. SwisterTwister   talk  21:27, 24 August 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.