Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/King & Country (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. Geschichte (talk) 03:07, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

King & Country (company)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Company which meets neither WP:GNG or WP:CORPDEPTH.  Onel 5969  TT me 04:11, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions.  Onel 5969  TT me 04:11, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 04:12, 30 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep This is a new article which needs improvement, not deletion, per WP:IMPERFECT and WP:ATD which states that "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." Such improvement is clearly possible because it has already started.  And there are yet more sources to find and add, such as this. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:40, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep Of the current five refs, the Korea Times is significant independent coverage that supports notability. I can't access the full South China Morning Post: aricle Andrew mentions in the previous comment, but it appears to be a second significant and indepedent one, so there we are at WP:CORP notability (WP:SIGCOV per GNG). DMacks (talk) 13:17, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. I made the first expansion after finding what I considered sufficient coverage in independent reliable sources: the Korea Times article all about the company, the South China Morning Post magazine account of it as one of the companies founded by Neilson and McAllister, and the Collectors Weekly description of it as one of the most important manufacturers of toy soldiers. Above cites another lengthy article about the company in the South China Morning Post, affirming that it passes GNG and probably the special criteria for businesses, too, as dominant in its field; I have now further expanded the article using this source. (Note: the SCMP demand for subscription can be circumvented using Wayback, see the references as now in the article.) The article was  created in a poor state, but the Korea Times reference was there from the second reference, and examination of that source might have suggested this was not a PROD candidate; that it was then sent to AfD after my expansion makes me wonder whether the nominator looked at the references. In any case, notability is clearly demonstrated now, in my opinion. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:58, 1 January 2021 (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.