Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diamond Calk Horseshoe 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 keep. Kurykh (talk) 20:38, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Diamond Calk Horseshoe Company

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Subject lacks sustained coverage in multiple reliable sources. There is passing mention in a few books and directories that prove this company existed, but that's about all we have. At access.newspaperarchive.com there's some brief mentions in old newspapers of an explosion in 1929 that killed 2, a strike that was settled in 1937... looks like a 'run of the mill' mill that was around for a long time. The company holds some patents, but I don't see evidence that they were significant inventions. Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:17, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. You have to search under its later name "Diamond Tool." Here's an article about it's significance in the sport of Horsehoe Pitching. There's substantial coverage here which also indicates that the controversy over the company's acquisition was covered in the NY Times. Local coverage here, which also suggests that substantial coverage in the local paper exists at the time for expanding the article.--Jahaza (talk) 19:09, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The second two are more evidence that this run-of-the-mill company existed for a long time. The first one is intriguing, but it appears to be a personal website, belonging to Bob Dunn. Who is that? If we had a reliable source to back up the things Dunn has on his website, I think that might count for something. The basic claim is that Diamond was "instrumental" in organizing and promoting horseshoe pitching in the 20s and 30s. If that is accurate, then there ought to be independent newspaper, books or magazines that say that. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:38, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Bob Dunn is the author of the article, which is an archived version of an article printed in the 90's in the official journal of the (US) National Horseshoe Pitching Association. There's a similar article here from Canada's horseshoe pitching association. A reprint of an article from Anvil Magazine here, more about Swanstrom and the company (for verifiability if not notability here, company was considered important enough to be included in an oral history project here, a brand successor to the company still exists.--Jahaza (talk) 20:51, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I have to admit I'm stumped by these references and don't know what to make of them. Hopefully other editors will have some idea what to say. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:30, 30 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:46, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:46, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KaisaL (talk) 23:59, 29 March 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:38, 5 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep. Bob Dunn is an expert, clearly, it seems to me.  This 1998 article and others are reliable sources, IMHO.  It is a very long con, indeed, if he is playing to hoax Wikipedia! -- do  ncr  am  07:16, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. I found the company mentioned by several books (Google Books in the search results). In addition, major/relevant publications mention the company such as India Times and Anvil Magazine. The historical history of technology is important because over the long term this often has far greater impact than the "history of great men/women".  The historian Ferdinand Braudel in his book Capitalism and the Material Life convincingly points this out. In addition, there is a definite audience for this article given the amount of tinkers/inventors/history buffs, etc. in society. Knox490 (talk) 07:15, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. Bob Dunn is an expert, clearly, it seems to me.  This 1998 article and others are reliable sources, IMHO.  It is a very long con, indeed, if he is playing to hoax Wikipedia! -- do  ncr  am  07:16, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. I found the company mentioned by several books (Google Books in the search results). In addition, major/relevant publications mention the company such as India Times and Anvil Magazine. The historical history of technology is important because over the long term this often has far greater impact than the "history of great men/women".  The historian Ferdinand Braudel in his book Capitalism and the Material Life convincingly points this out. In addition, there is a definite audience for this article given the amount of tinkers/inventors/history buffs, etc. in society. Knox490 (talk) 07:15, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. Bob Dunn is an expert, clearly, it seems to me.  This 1998 article and others are reliable sources, IMHO.  It is a very long con, indeed, if he is playing to hoax Wikipedia! -- do  ncr  am  07:16, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. I found the company mentioned by several books (Google Books in the search results). In addition, major/relevant publications mention the company such as India Times and Anvil Magazine. The historical history of technology is important because over the long term this often has far greater impact than the "history of great men/women".  The historian Ferdinand Braudel in his book Capitalism and the Material Life convincingly points this out. In addition, there is a definite audience for this article given the amount of tinkers/inventors/history buffs, etc. in society. Knox490 (talk) 07:15, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 20:38, 13 April 2017 (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.