Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carl Goldberg Products


 * 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   no consensus. Been relisted twice with no new input. To me, this is a classic "no consensus" by count and comment. My gut says that there are probably plenty of hard copy references, but no one has bothered to look them up. Now would be a good time to do so, as the next AFD, the consensus may be much more clear without them. Dennis - 2&cent; 17:05, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Carl Goldberg Products

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Wholly non-notable company as per WP:NCORP. This was deleted by PROD and should have stayed that way the panda ₯’  19:57, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. I restored the article as a contested prod. This is a long-established company, and arguably the biggest name in flying model kit aircraft. The name is instantly recognizable by anyone who got into the hobby as a kid. Most of the reviews of this company's products in magazines such as R/C Modeler were pre-internet so it's unlikely that sources will be found online. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:11, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. What I read online (as well as ~Amatulic's comment) makes me think it is possible that "significant coverage in independent sources can be found for a topic" (quoted from WP:GNG). But is it probable? Maybe, but this article has been around for eight years, with no proof of notability. To again quote WP:GNG, "...merely asserting that unspecified sources exist is seldom persuasive, especially if time passes and actual proof does not surface." Don't any of you long time modellers out there have access to old hard copy sources? --Larry (talk) 21:52, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately I don't have my old magazines. By the time I get around to checking a library this article will probably be deleted. No big deal, as it can always be restored. There isn't much in this article to begin with. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:16, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the article could be refactored into an article about the owner, who has had significant coverage available online, for example:, , . ~Amatulić (talk) 22:31, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 7 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 20:24, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Biblio worm  02:03, 24 October 2014 (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.