Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heron Cross Pottery


 * 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.  Sandstein  06:29, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Heron Cross Pottery

 * – ( View AfD View log )

No indication of notability. Only sources are a search page and the companies own website. Google searches don't find anything significant. noq (talk) 23:46, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  —Mais oui! (talk) 04:26, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions.  —Mais oui! (talk) 04:26, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Delete as per nom. No notability either asserted in article nor evident through other searches/means according to WP:COMPANY. Appears to be simply a business. Simon-in-sagamihara (talk) 06:33, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete fails WP:ORG - in particular independence of sources. As above, Google search turns up little of consequence. Whiteguru (talk) 06:42, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete. A few mentions in Google Books, but not enough to justify notability. As a company that old, there may be some historical significance, but so far there's nothing to back this up. May change vote if off-Google coverage presented. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 07:51, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Important to keep because: a) continuous history since 1800s b) currently active commercial pottery with attractive products with a market (see their web site), c) I will research it more when I have time.Duncanogi (talk) 07:56, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * If you can find evidence of notability, that's good, but bear in mind that AfDs run for five days and they rarely choose to keep articles solely on the promise that more research will be done later. Arguing to keep an article because your products are good, however, carries no weight at all; anyone can claim on their own website that they stock "attractive products with a market". It's what other people write about the company that counts. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 08:14, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Lengthy study yesterday at Bristol public library has unearthed information that I believe justifies keeping this article. No doubt more can be gleaned in Stafford library.Duncanogi (talk) 10:01, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Well you now seem to have created three separate articles covering the same ground William Hines (Staffordshire potter) and Hines Brothers as well as this article. None of them show anything other than they existed - not the same as notability. The current version of this article makes contradictory claims about it continuing until 1937 and still existing today! noq (talk) 10:39, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Response. Your major and reasonable concern was the duplication of material in the three articles William Hines (the main founder), Hines Brothers (the business name), and Heron Cross Pottery the physical pottery. I have today worked intensively to minimise duplication.

Thanks also for the comment about contradiction. My understanding of the confusion is that:
 * The physical pottery was called Heron Cross Pottery when opened and still has that name.
 * The pottery business was called Hines Brothers until taken over by Grimwades in 1907.
 * The current business was later started with the name Heron Cross Pottery (with the same nameas the physical pottery).
 * The small bits of history of England! I am sure wording can be improved.

'''The distinction between and notability of the three articles is the main founder William Hines, founding business name Hines Brothers, and the still existing physical Heron Cross pottery. I ask you to keep these articles on which I will work further when I have time.''' Duncanogi (talk) 16:08, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 14:38, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Have you read WP:notability? That is the main issue - your spreading the same meagre material over multiple smaller articles does nothing to address that. Note that notability is not existence - and length of existence does not give automatic notability. noq (talk) 00:44, 15 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. This editor seems to be on a personal crusade to document his family history and continues despite repeated intervention by numerous editors. This is Wikipedia not Wikia. Perhaps the latter would be a more suitable outlet for this content. --Simple Boba.k.a. The Spaminator (Talk) 01:44, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. I do appreciate your comments, but this is worthwhile history and I have put much energy into researching this. No blood relations of mine involved.Duncanogi (talk) 08:21, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * "Family" can include your wife, Duncan. Simon-in-sagamihara (talk) 09:20, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment You have still failed to show how it meets the notability guidelines. That is the basic requirement for an article here. What there is appears to be WP:original research which does not belong on Wikipedia. noq (talk) 09:54, 16 July 2011 (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.