Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kohler Interiors


 * 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. The article doesn't look that bad (To be honest it's fine compared to some of the articles on here!), Meh article's been improved isnce nomination. (non-admin closure) – Davey 2010 Talk 20:52, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Kohler Interiors

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

All of the references are to their own Web sites, directory listings, or tangential (e.g. a biography of the person who started the company before they bought it). A Google News search did not show up any better references. Having an article like this serves no purpose except promotion. Gronk Oz (talk) 04:31, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. I disagree with your belief this article is promotion. It's no different than other million and billion dollar companies having their own articles for each division listing their companies, ect. I've added the article with additional sources from newspapers and business journals. 8 of the 12 sources are from newspapers or business news websites. Asher Heimermann (talk) 04:46, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:45, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:27, 25 November 2015 (UTC)


 * See related Articles for deletion/Destination Kohler. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:44, 25 November 2015 (UTC)


 * It's clear the nominator's concern was references and the user believes the article is promotion which is not promotion considering other large companies have their own articles for their divisions. The nominated article has references to creditable news websites as well as company websites. Because the Kohler Company is so large, it would be difficult to include all of their divisions, subsidiaries, companies, major events hosted and it's hotels and golf courses. Asher Heimermann (talk) 16:01, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The nominator is quite capable of making his own statements about what he thinks, thank you. I see two serious problems: the lack of references that establish notability, and the promotional tone. To establish notability, perhaps you would be kind enough to point out which three or four references you think are most compelling. They should be significant, in-depth coverage of the subject in reliable, independent sources. It seems to me that the tone of the article reads more like a corporate brochure: its only content is the list of subsidiaries with a brief description of each - that is not really encyclopaedic content. And please don't get distracted by what pages do or don't exist for other companies: that is not relevant here, this article must be assessed on its own merits.--Gronk Oz (talk) 17:06, 25 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep Kohler Company is a large national corporation with a very diverse set of properties and divisions besides its mainstays - plumbing and engine divisions. See Template:Kohler Company to see how complicated it is. Looking at the big picture, I think that how their properties and divisions are divided into articles is reasonable, including this list. A single "list" style article to link together the divisions, destinations and their many other properties would be too large. I don't think that any of these companies should have their own articles at this time but the group is notable based on the number / quality of the sources. I agree that tone in this article was a problem so I have edited out the promotional wording.  Royal  broil  05:41, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to Kohler Company perhaps as News, Books, browsers and Highbeam found some links but simply not much better to suggest a better separate article. SwisterTwister   talk  06:14, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep I agree that some of the verbiage is still promotional-ish, but there appear to be enough independent sources to establish notability. The text of the article also seems to be rather rambling and disorganized but that is fixable.  Nyth 63  11:02, 28 November 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.