Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Wagner Companies


 * 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, as the fundamental issue of notability has not been addressed. There is no prejudice against recreating this article if sources can be provided to satisfy the notability concerns. Shereth 22:05, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

The Wagner Companies

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Manufacturing a metal pole that ended up in a museum because of it's connection to a Seinfeld episode appears to be this company's only claim to fame notability. This is not sufficient to meet WP:CORP. Not clear how this company is notable. contested prod. RadioFan (talk) 16:39, 25 December 2009 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 00:06, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:05, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
 * Keep. No valid rationale for deletion; plausible search term; "claim to fame" not an appropriate criterion for evaluating notability of businesses. Encyclopedias should be encyclopedic. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:14, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment rational has been updated slightly. It is not clear from the article how it meets guidelines for inclusion.  No claim of notability outside of a (weak) link to a Seinfeld episode is made.--RadioFan (talk) 22:24, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd think being actively engaged in the industry since 1850 is an indication of notability. The Festivus poles are a bit of lagniappe; there are a lot of nonglamorous businesses that meet the GNG, and shouldn't be judged by celebrity-oriented standards. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:57, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Age of the company is an argument that should be avoided in notability discussions (there are plenty of companies as old or older that aren't notable either) as is the existence of articles with similar problems. If the company can be shown to be notable according to general notability guidlines, then great, but as it stands there is no significant claim of notability.--RadioFan (talk) 23:25, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete No notability at all. 'Encyclopedic' doesn't mean 'include everything', as so many editors seem all too keen to prove. --80.192.1.168 (talk) 01:20, 2 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep A long standing company in an industry for this much time is probably notable, but it would be good to see a serioussearch for numerbers and the like, because market share is an appropriate criterion.    DGG ( talk ) 00:07, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as trivial coverage, such as product launches, does not provide evidence of notability in accordance with WP:CORP. This article is little more than a public relations piece, which fails WP:SPAM. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 16:34, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails WP:CORP. Doesn't matter how long they've been around. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:46, 7 January 2010 (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.