Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prairie Gun Works


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 01:42, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Prairie Gun Works

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable company. Tagged with notability since December 2007. Bjelleklang -  talk 21:34, 30 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - It appears the most news coverage they received was for the Canadian government contract, a reprint of the news release here. Google News found results here (forum thread but provides a (now dead) news link) and one minor mention here (interviewing the owner). Google Books provided mostly magazine directory listings but found mentions here (listing two of PGW's products, M-15 and M-18) and here (minor mention for one of their rifles). Google Books provided one result that wouldn't appear properly here (first result from the top). In 2009, the company also received small news coverage as a result of Manitoba shipping weapons to Saudi Arabia here and a reprint here (third result from the top). This link suggests they received coverage in a Guns magazine edition for 2010 but I haven't found any free evidence to support this. SwisterTwister   talk  21:02, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:31, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Manitoba-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:31, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:31, 1 November 2012 (UTC)


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 01:15, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

 
 * Delete What SisterTwister said: not enough significant coverage in reliable sources to satisfy the general notability guideline. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:13, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley   Huntley  00:16, 14 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. The company isn't notable. Most of the coverage qualifies as trivial. Lacks the significant coverage that the general notability guideline requires.-- xanchester  (t)  05:23, 14 November 2012 (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.