Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Winross


 * 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.   A rbitrarily 0   ( talk ) 01:28, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Winross

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Does not appear to meet WP:CORP. Stifle (talk) 11:15, 23 April 2010 (UTC) Weak Delete I can't find any independent coverage of this company at all. However, there appears to be a very lively collectors' market for the trucks, which provides most of the Ghits as well as ten pages of Gnews hits. I almost hate to delete something that is of interest to so many people, even if I can't find WP:RS reliable sources about the company. --MelanieN (talk) 01:26, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Winross as Pioneer
Some Wikipedians seem to think that only verifiable categories from several other sources are worthy of inclusion. I try to include collector's categories in Wikipedia BECAUSE they are difficult to find other information on. This company almost single-handedly established the promotional model market for model trucks with logos on their sides. Ertl, Racing Champions, Hot Wheels and others followed in similar scales, thus copying Winross's lead. The company blazed an important trail, and the article is accurate and important for toy and promotional collectors. --Cstevencampbell (talk) 22:30, 29 April 2010 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   06:23, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I hear what Cstevencampbell is saying. Maybe this kind of situation - a small company which doesn't get RS in the usual sense, but is of great interest to collectors and antiquarians - should fall under WP:IAR and be considered notable enough to remain. There are tons of mentions about the collecting hobby in books, flea market ads, etc. If the company doesn't make it as notable, maybe a separate new article could be created about "Winross trucks (collecting hobby)" or "model truck collecting" or something like that. --MelanieN (talk) 18:20, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Comment Sorry but we need RS to establish most of what is claimed, as well as to establish notability. At this time I can see no reason to keep this page.Slatersteven (talk) 15:51, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

RS
Many important things in the world exist independent of RS. I have collected miniature vehicles for 40 years and have gained some insight. Dave Sinclair, mentioned in the article was one of the primary starters of much diecast model collecting in the U.S. since the late 1960s - and I have verified that in my Wikipedia articles. Just because books and articles haven't been written thoroughly on a subject does not mean the subject is not worth merit. Maybe Wikipedia should adopt a policy similar to that of many professional journals - have a kind of voluntary editorial board of professionals to help establish merit of an article - because RS is going to fail much of the time.

Maybe Wikipedia is just too narrow and specific for this kind of thing. If Winross is deleted it shows a certain narrowness of philosophy and some encyclopedias can be more narrow and thematic in scope, but I thought Wikipedia was a general knowledge encyclopedia. If Winross is deleted, someone is going to look it up pretty soon and -nothing-. And I AM on the constant lookout for new sources for the articles that I have created / contributed to. --Cstevencampbell (talk) 00:07, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Weak delete. Start a website about Winross, but it doesn't meet WP:GNG, and most of the information that can be found about it will fail other parts of Wikipedia, such as WP:OR. tedder (talk) 07:46, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Weak Delete An admision that in fact there is no RS to establish notability means that I cannot see a resson to keep this. Yes Wikipedia is a general knowledge encylopdia, but is also must have some kind of critria for inclusion or else it will consist of pages about how wonderfull something me and a friend do is (which this page looks a bit like). Now you may have a point and that a board of experts could oversee the project, but what would be the criteria for inclusion (qualifications (In toys?), 29 years working in the industry (COI?), Claiming it (Verfiy). It seems to be that it would not solve the problom of notability (after all what if no expert is availbile to judge a page?) and does create almost a kind of offical wiki possiition (which goes againt the whole idea of Wiki). At the end of the day the idea of verifiability is the only way to keep Wiki a wiki.Slatersteven (talk) 17:25, 15 May 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.