Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TNT Fireworks


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. While !votes were pretty evenly split, no real rebuttal was provided to the final source analyses provided by editors advocating deletion. signed,Rosguill talk 21:57, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

TNT Fireworks

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

not notable according to no reliable sources and WP:NCORP. Facebook source should be deleted. Tls9-me (talk) 08:32, 27 June 2023 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  J947  † edits 03:21, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Alabama. Shellwood (talk) 09:14, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete Only news articles found are company stores telling people how to handle fireworks safely. Nothing for GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 15:01, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment I have added more sources to the article and removed the Facebook one. DarkNight0917 (talk) 21:05, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep After reviewing DarkNight0917's edits, I'd say the article passes WP:GNG. I also fixed up two links that did not lead to where they intended. Conyo14 (talk) 22:03, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep Passes WP:GNG after recent edits. Grahaml35 (talk) 19:24, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
 * keep per improvements to article WP:HEY. ResonantDistortion 17:52, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Weak delete. I'm not seeing sources that meet WP:SIRS for WP:NCORP. Given the age of the company it's likely there are archives of newspapers to hunt through, but right now it's hard to guarantee NPOV. &mdash;siro&chi;o 10:25, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. I'm unable to locate any reference that meet NCORP criteria for establishing notability.  HighKing++ 21:07, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. Tricky per both sides above, but I think it is better cleaned up than deleted.  Chamaemelum  (  talk  ) 01:44, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment None of the Keep !voters have pointed to any references that meet NCORP criteria for establishing notability, just WP:VAGUEWAVEs.  HighKing++ 14:21, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I decided to show a source analysis. The only thing the sources don't detail is the vast history of the company, something that would increase its notability. However I feel this table shows justification of WP:GNG. That being said, a citation is probably required for the start date of this company. It's been around a very long time. Conyo14 (talk) 23:47, 9 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment I do not believe any of the 5 "green" sources listed in the table as counting toward GNG satisfy WP:SIRS for WP:CORP. (My !vote above remains as is.)
 * routine (short coverage, minor lawsuit)
 * routine product recall
 * routine product recall
 * not independent, and not about company
 * not independent, routine
 * &mdash;siro&chi;o 02:02, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment I agree and pretty obviously too. For example this in tucson.com about the county getting sued over its bad on fireworks has two mentions-in-passing of the company. It has zero in-depth information about the company and fails WP:CORPDEPTH. One of these days I'm gonna do a source table for GNG/NCORP so that we can explicitly evaluate CORPDEPTH and ORGIND.  HighKing++ 21:51, 10 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete Very well prepared and presented source analysis table, which gives a clear indication that that article is non-notable. I can't see any definition in the references that would indicate it was notable. Woeful sources really Fails WP:NCORP.   scope_creep Talk  11:15, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment If someone here wants to take stewardship of it to avoid backdoor deletion, I think there's a promising case for draftifying here. This is an old company and there will very likely be analog sources. We just can't really guarantee NPOV without any at all. &mdash;siro&chi;o 11:20, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed,Rosguill talk 02:13, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Delete Fails WP:NCORP, the sources mentioned above don't meet the criteria, unless good analogue sources can be found. --TheInsatiableOne (talk) 14:13, 13 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep. I used the Wikipedia Library to look for sources. I stopped looking at Newspapers.com search results after 100 results, most of them unique. A NewspaperArchive search turned up 62 results. A ProQuest search turned up 1586 results. TNT Fireworks sponsors the big B.A.S.S. Nation fishing tournaments
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 15:45, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Can you present WP:THREE or even 2 that meet WP:SIRS? &mdash;siro&chi;o 20:43, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Raw search url results are non-rs as you can't identify what article is being talked about, so that is non-statement. If you have sources that satisfy WP:THREE then present so we can examine them. As at the moment, there is not coverage that satisfies WP:SIRS and WP:NCORP. Post something that is valid instead on non-statements.   scope_creep Talk  15:39, 19 July 2023 (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.