Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Krebs Pigments and Chemical 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. postdlf (talk) 13:30, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Krebs Pigments and Chemical Company

 * – ( View AfD View log )

fails WP:CORP. no significant coverage, nothing in gnews nor gbooks LibStar (talk) 12:26, 24 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Weak Delete There are 2 correct sources given in the article. These establish existence but only the smallest amount of notability. I suppose the question is, does WP want to record minor companies of the early 20th century. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:52, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep again per GNG: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list. 'Significant coverage' means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 13:08, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 13:28, 24 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - The sources provided seem to establish notability. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 14:47, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep, weakly. Seems to have enough long term historical interest to sustain an article on a defunct business, and there's no longer any possibility of commercial conflict of interest. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:59, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Comments See Articles for deletion/Elbert Adrian Brinckerhoff and Articles for deletion/Charles William Floyd Coffin and Articles for deletion/Mayor of Englewood, New Jersey and Articles for deletion/William Davis Ticknor (New Jersey) for more nominations by the same person using this rationale. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:56, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * other AfDs are irrelevant. This is an WP:ADHOM argument that makes no attempt to argue notability for this subject. Nice try, Richard. LibStar (talk) 21:37, 24 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep per Sources, however a major rewrite is nessisary, it does have long term historical signifigance, as mentioned above. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 18:48, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Multiple reliable and verifiable sources establish that this company meets the notability standard. Having trolled through obituaries for quite some time, it seems that many people and companies from the pre-Internet era lack articles that would already have articles if they had lived / existed today. Part of this is WP:RECENTISM, in that people / companies that exist today seem more important or relevant, but much of it is a mixture of lack of awareness and difficulty on obtaining sources. Krebs served an important role in the industry at its time and deserves an article, though it is downright shocking that National Lead, a company that was both a major industrial firm of the early 20th century and a huge polluter, does not have an article of its own, which I think only proves my point. Alansohn (talk) 22:45, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I didn't mean what I said about National Lead to be a dare. An original stock of the Dow Jones should have an article. Alansohn (talk) 02:36, 25 October 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.