Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Noveske Rifleworks


 * 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. Insufficient sources to establish WP:CORPDEPTH -- RoySmith (talk) 22:49, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Noveske Rifleworks

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Lack of significant coverage by reliable third party sources. Doesn't appear to pass WP:CORP. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:10, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:47, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:47, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. North America1000 21:41, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete. I didn't find anything in my search other than listings in retail catalogs.  With no significant coverage of the firm, I don't see it passing our notability guidelines.  NewYorkActuary (talk) 19:51, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jenks24 (talk) 10:22, 25 June 2016 (UTC) Keep Noveske has made numerous innovations to the AR platform including a KX-3 Muzzle Brake designed to increase back pressure on short barreled semi auto rifles in order to improve function.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 22:46, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I appreciate those innovations. Would you mind providing the significant coverage by reliable third party sources? Thanks! Niteshift36 (talk) 23:23, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I hope there's more coming. A news story that the founder was killed isn't coverage of the company. The couple of paragraphs in American Rifleman about new ammo is more of a press release than anything. The other two magazine articles really seem to be more product test than coverage of the company. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:13, 27 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Press releases are acceptable reliable sources, especially if used to generate an article. Did they ship you a blemed lower or something?--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 02:21, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Press releases can be reliable sources for certain information, but they aren't considered coverage for establishing notability. As for your ridiculous personal attack, stay on topic sparky and save your conspiracy theories for someone else. Since you bring it up.... have you ever accepted free merchandise or other items from Noveske Rifleworks? Niteshift36 (talk) 02:58, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
 * No, unless you count a free sticker from their booth the year after John died. I do sincerely apologize, I forget how some people have no sense of humor when it comes to wiki. Sometimes I wonder why I even bother with it.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 04:08, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Hmmmm, you disagree with me, disagree with me again, then insert an alleged "joke" that has nothing funny about it....and this is somehow my fault for not "getting it". Now THAT actually got a chuckle out of me. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:39, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
 * My dear, please keep the high ground. , I am not quite sure what a "blemed" is, but your comment doesn't sound good. And no, press releases are not reliable sources: there is little reason to presume that an organization will be truthful in the information it provides. Besides, press releases certainly don't add to notability. Drmies (talk) 03:08, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
 * , I actually am asking a legitimate question. Since Mike is a prolific gun writer (no outing here), and industry writers often get gear from companies wishing to generate goodwill with opinion makers, I think it's fair to ask the question. For example, the Noveske rifle he mentioned in this review: BTW, a "blemed" lower would be one with a manufacturing blemish. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:14, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the explanation--"blemed". You're never too old to learn. Anyway, that conversation should maybe take place elsewhere. I wish I got stuff from companies and people I write up, Niteshift. I'd be drowning in beer and novels. Drmies (talk) 03:18, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I've received a lot of stuff from companies, but I usually don't edit articles about those items or those connected to them. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:22, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: The debate is blemed as per not having received quite enough input for a decise close to be performed at this time. North America1000 03:26, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:26, 3 July 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 01:05, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete -- current references do not suggest notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:56, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete' as Yes, there are sources and, with it, information, but I'm still not seeing anything else actually convincing including of substance, and there's nothing else close enough convincing, delete therefore. SwisterTwister   talk  04:50, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete This fails WP:CORPDEPTH which specifically requires a certain depth of coverage. While there is coverage, it is not the type which can satisfy CORPDEPTH. The coverage about the founder's accident cannot be used for the purpose of establishing notability of the company (as the information about the company is slight). Other sources simply mention a change in CEO (routine coverage) or trivial mentions about the products. There is literally not one good reliable source which talks about the company in depth. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:20, 20 July 2016 (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.