Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Henry Watson's Potteries


 * 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. The consensus is that other than apparently-non-independent sources, there is no reliable coverage and a lack of evidence of notability.  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 18:49, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Henry Watson's Potteries

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No indication whatsoever of notability. Copyvio from the day it was created, now removed. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:31, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  Everymorning   talk  12:55, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:31, 14 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete: no coverage in secondary sources. Fails WP:GNG.  G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 19:07, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep The pottery seems to be about 300 years old and so there's plenty of material to be found. Andrew D. (talk) 02:05, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete- I looked for sources that can dmeonstrate notability, and found nothing in Google web, news, and books. Only things like the company's own home page, and business directories. Reyk  YO!  15:17, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Some variation in the search keywords is required to tease clues out of Google Books. There seems to be detailed coverage in sources such as Ceramic Age, Queensbury Hunt, Proceedings of the Suffolk Institute of Archaeology and Natural History and The English Country Pottery: its history and techniques. Andrew D. (talk) 16:57, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The first two of these are passing mentions, which I found myself and did not judge significant, and I cannot find any mention of "Henry Watson" at all in the other two. Can you provide the page numbers on which this significant coverage occurs? Reyk YO!  18:27, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Google Books doesn't make this easy but I was content with the indications I saw. Anyway, I find there's a substantial online source which can be seen more fully:- Henry Watson’s Potteries .... Andrew D. (talk) 19:16, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:31, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete- While there do seem to be passing mentions of the business in some sources, they fail Significant coverage. The archaeological source Davidson points out might make a good addition to the Wattisfield article, though. It even has a paragraph on pottery making already. Forbes72 (talk) 23:44, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The archaeological source contains a six page history of the company which is more than enough to satisfy WP:SIGCOV. That source refers to a parish history which also contains details of the company.  Adding this material to details of Wattisfield would be done by merger, not deletion.  That's our editing policy.  Andrew D. (talk) 14:02, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * My mistake. I cited significant when I meant significant independent coverage. If this research was independently published and not directly funded by the family, then I have no concerns. It's simply that quotes that imply close connection like "Post-excavation work relied heavily upon material provided by Mr Jeremy Watson" and the fact that it is located at www.henrywatson.com, which is also a retail shop, raise questions about its independence. Forbes72 (talk) 04:33, 3 February 2015 (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.