Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Underwood Ammo


 * 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. Consensus is sourcing isn't sufficient Star   Mississippi  02:20, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Underwood Ammo

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

This was moved from a draft by the author of the article, despite the fact that it was declined as not sufficiently notable per the AFC reviewers. The sources do not appear to be reliable. There is no indication that this company meets WP:GNG. Bbb23 (talk) 22:45, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –&#8239;Joe (talk) 09:29, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Most of the nomination statement is irrelevant. Editors with ~30,000 edits are not required to use AFC in the first place, there is no rule against them moving drafts to the mainspace, and there is no compelling reason to assume that an AFC reviewer who has barely made 2,000 edits is always going to be correct when they decline an article.  Also, while I know nothing about this subject area, even I recognize Field & Stream as a reliable source for information about hunting. Did you do a WP:BEFORE search yourself?  I don't know what the go-to sources are for this area, but I put   in The Wikipedia Library and got 13 hits, plus a couple more under  .  I didn't notice any overlapping with the eight sources that are already cited in the article.  I imagine that this one –  – would be one of the more useful.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:33, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment All refs 2 & 3 do is confirm Underwood makes two caliber of ammo. Refs 4-7 are not about Underwood. David notMD (talk) 07:25, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Some of the refs are indeed about the industry within which Underwood is involved, and some of the claims regarding the content of the article. Thank you. ♥ Th78blue (talk) ♥ 14:29, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I would kindly ask that we leave as is, but remove any refs that other editors may feel are inappropriate or inadequate. I request that this nomination for deletion be ended in favor of keeping. Thank you. ♥ Th78blue (talk) ♥ 17:32, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * How long do we wait for this? I'd like for the article to stay, and would be willing to make changes if someone has specific pieces they want to cut or add. Thank you. ♥ Th78blue (talk) ♥ 19:41, 6 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete This is a company/organization therefore NCORP guidelines apply. WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. None of the references in the article meet the criteria and I can't find any, topic fails WP:NCORP.  HighKing++ 21:04, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete. There's essentially nothing to say about this company and their run-of-the-mill ammo.  Couldn't find things for WP:NCORP.  FalconK (talk) 05:52, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
 * How many other companies are making solid-copper-monolithic-fluted projectile rounds with lead free components that you know of to make that "run-of-the-mill" statement? Thank you. ♥ Th78blue (talk) ♥ 12:44, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete. Most of the refs in the article are product reviews (not about the company). Four of the refs don't even mention Underwood. I could not find significant coverage of the company to support WP:NCORP notability. Schazjmd   (talk)  22:42, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 * That is unfortunate, I just spent some time digging further and added several more. I'd ask you to reconsider. In fact, this article is more deeply cited than many others in the same industry at this point. ♥ Th78blue (talk) ♥ 00:27, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * , I posted my opinion above after reviewing the sources that you added to the article. The problem is that none of those sources provide significant coverage of the company. Schazjmd   (talk)  00:32, 11 May 2022 (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.