Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thresher & Glenny


 * 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   keep.  Sandstein  08:34, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Thresher & Glenny

 * – ( View AfD View log )

This article was speedily deleted per WP:CSD (spam), then undeleted and sent to AfD per Deletion review/Log/2012 March 16. Please see there for possible reasons for deletion; this is a procedural nomination.  Sandstein  16:20, 26 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - a priori, this seems a very reasonable subject for an article, and the current material certainly seems far from 'unambiguous advertising'. The firm's age (founded 1683) could be enough to establish notability on its own, and the detailed timeline is certainly of interest also, though it must have come from the company itself. The claim to have invented the Trench coat with citation from The Times could also be enough to guarantee the article's future. And the anecdote about Nelson buying silk stockings would definitely make the running in any DYK list. Quite a few other claims are currently unsourced, but these are for normal editing, not AfD attention. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:48, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 23:37, 27 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - Not a stub, seems notable to me ! WikiFolks (talk) 18:21, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 2 April 2012 (UTC)




 * Keep Could do with more reliable recent references, but the older references are reliable, and it's more than just advertising. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:25, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B  music  ian  04:31, 9 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep There are plenty of references to the firm in other records, and therefore a good chance that people will want to look this firm up, which seems to me a good reason for inclusion in an encyclopedia. They are central to a much cited trademarks case, and references in, for example, a biography of John Gunther will lose their significance unless the reader understands that they were a very high class outfitter. WP does not have a policy against inclusion of articles about commercial concerns, for fear that might be seen as advertising - if it did then all music on current release and all bands associated with it would be excluded. --AJHingston (talk) 08:20, 9 April 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.