Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Forgan of St. Andrew's - Golf Equipment


 * 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 speedy deleted as spam (G11). Can't seem to find any copyvio, but this is nothing other than advertisement. Anyone willing to re-write this can contact me for the text of the article, however note that you should probably do it at a better title. Hers fold  (t/a/c) 17:58, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Forgan of St. Andrew&

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

The article's purpose turns out to be as an advert for a new company with the same name as an old company (cf the author's other contributions). I don't know enough about golf to know whether the original company could be notable in the sense of WP:CORP, but the basic requirement is that it must be talked about in secondary sources, and obviously there is no attempt at that here. The whole article feels like a copyvio too, though I'm not sure of this because I haven't found a source on the web. Stephen Turner (Talk) 15:05, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions.   —Stephen Turner (Talk) 15:09, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.   —Stephen Turner (Talk) 15:11, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep (if sources can be found) - but needs rewriting for tone, addition of sourcess. Also, it does sound fishy - delete or blank if copyvio is found.  There are a number of sources out there, and the company (old and new) seems to be a significant manufacturer of golf equipment.  It's common that an old brand gets acquired and relaunched under new ownership.  Very common with sporting equipment.  The article would tend to cover the entire history of the brand, not one period of corporate ownership, so it would close by describing those circumstances.Wikidemo (talk) 18:21, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Rewrite The present version is obviously a copyvio--see the last two paragraphs, and is very spammy. Probably an acceptable article can be written, but it has to start overDGG (talk) 17:24, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - article revision &mdash; added Template:Infobox Defunct company and talk-page tagged to WikiProject Companies. --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 15:49, 19 April 2008 (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.