Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tamko


 * 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 no consensus. No prejudice against an early renomination in case any editor believes that the sources added by JGabbard don't pass notability standards. Lourdes  07:15, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Tamko

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of organizations and companies). The references are dependent, local and unreliable. As per WP:INTREF Wikipedia referencing guide, the subject's own website is not an acceptable reference. As per WP:ORG, if no independent, third-party, reliable sources can be found on a topic, then Wikipedia should not have an article on it. OliverKianzo (talk) 09:56, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 11:19, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 11:19, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete No neutral sources. UnitedStatesian (talk) 11:27, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. Multiple refs added, including two neutral sources. With no further comments during the week, propose close of AfD. - JGabbard (talk) 17:23, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 17:15, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. DreamLinker (talk) 07:08, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 14:36, 15 February 2019 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Almost even split, without much discussion about whether or not it is notable but instead focusing on whether the current references show its notability.
 * Keep per most recently added references. Remember, judgments of notability should be based on what sources are out there, not what sources are already in the article. Even the most cursory web search turns up a number of independent secondary sources, not a surprising result for a large, 70 year old company. Sneftel (talk) 15:34, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep: With the new added sources it passes WP:NORG. GN-z11  ☎  ★ 17:39, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete Just a random company not even mentioned in industry related sources or news papers. Came here through random button. BananasReborn (talk) 22:15, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 17:22, 22 February 2019 (UTC) comment added --DannyS712 (talk) 18:32, 22 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep not a WP:MILL company but a major manufacturer of roofing with operations across a number of states. Many more sources available given it's 70+ year history. Legacypac (talk) 19:51, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep: Tamko employs 650 people just in the local area, is unquestionably notable regionally and also known nationally, and is one of the largest employers in Joplin. All companies of this size or larger in this area already have articles. - JGabbard (talk) 02:03, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Week keep: There is always the old other stuff argument when that is not only generally a bad argument but not supported by any policies or guidelines. The company has been around a long time and even though likely rated outside the top ten (was #11) I can see some notability although a search seems to be more about the class action lawsuit. That is not abnormal as GAF, Owen Corning, Atlas, CertainTeed, IKO, and Globe Building Materials (probably others) along with Tamko, had these suits over roof failures (and fading), deceptive warranties, substandard roofing shingle manufacturing, false advertising, etc..., for fiberglass, organic, and asphalt shingles. My issue is that because a company has good advertising, as shown by mostly primary sources, does not equate to notability regardless of how much we like it. Adding more primary sources to support notability does not make the case. Otr500 (talk) 14:20, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete if I have to compare it with policies like WP:NCORP and WP:GNG it fails both. I created much better articles that were heavily referenced but deleted. HPlilly (talk) 20:19, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete Just about every excuse has been used by the Keep !voters above - except the only measure that counts which is at least two references that pass WP:NCORP. Not a single reference that is either in the article or that I can locate online meets the criteria for establishing notability. If we want to simply ignore our own guidelines, fine, lets keep any article on a company that is 70 years old, a major employer and has been sued in court. Otherwise, lets follow our own guidelines. Topic fails NCORP and GNG.  HighKing++ 17:59, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete Very well explained above, I guess nothing more left to debate. BananasReborn (talk) 12:52, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete Came to the article through random tab. I looked from the above search but nothing much, and as far as I know about GNG it's not fully comply. It is an old company which could be a fact but just an age is not enough. This is what GNG says, " If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." Serena Sermin (talk) 17:37, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Additional neutral references added. Reevaluation necessary. - JGabbard (talk) 00:15, 28 February 2019 (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.