Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maco (toy 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. With new sources, article appears to meet RS criteria Tawker (talk) 22:12, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Maco (toy company)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No assertion or explanation of notability. Company existed, but there are no reliable sources which discuss the company in detail. There are ebay listings, and a blog, but little else. Fails WP:COMPANY due to lack of independent reliable sources speaking in detail about the topic.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  16:11, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 18 March 2014 (UTC)


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 02:17, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  → Call me  Hahc  21  00:37, 1 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment. A WP:SOFTDELETE may be an appropriate outcome here if nobody else comments.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  08:15, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete, the products seem to be reasonably popular amongst collectors, and it's easy to find them listed in price catalogues and the like for hobbyists. But I wasn't able to find anything substantial about the company itself, so I don't think they meet the WP:GNG.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 07:34, 9 April 2014 (UTC).
 * Keep. A surprising statement from a deletionist like me, but they seem like an interesting part of US cultural history.  I've found what looks like a reliable source, which I'm adding to the article now.  -- RoySmith (talk) 12:46, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I just took a look with the hope that there was something substantial so we can close this AfD. Mbaskool.com is simply providing a brand directory, indicating that the company existed - something we already know - but doesn't speak for its notability. Indeed, it does the opposite as it says under the SWOT analysis: "Limited only to the US and has negligible presence". The directory entry is saying, "this brand is not notable but it did exist".  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  13:35, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I've added a few more references, all of which, I admit, are of dubious quality. I agree that this was a minor company, but would suggest that WP:N needs to be read in context.  Most arguments around WP:N are regarding modern subjects, often ones with WP:COI issues, i.e. the owner of a small current company is trying to get his company a mention in the encyclopedia for marketing purposes.  For minor companies which no longer exist, and which only existed in the days before universal internet coverage, the historical record is bound to be weaker and spottier, so a depth of coverage which would not pass muster on a current company might well be sufficient for a historical one.  I've also just added two references from the NY Times.  -- RoySmith (talk) 14:05, 9 April 2014 (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.