Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Woodlawn Manufacturing


 * 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. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 14:28, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Woodlawn Manufacturing

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Declined Prod. Redid references, but found only a few significant mentions, so sent to AFD for review. -- Eclipsed (talk) (COI Declaration) 11:32, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 19:19, 9 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete The references are the sort of routine, trivial coverage given to a run of the mill manufacturer of munitions parts. Google Books has a number of mentions of a late 19th and early 20th century cotton processor of the same name. I conclude that the current firm is not notable.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  21:05, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Spam article about a non-notable business, written by an account used only to promote various businesses and organisations. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:43, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Please be reminded that Arguments to the person are to be avoided in deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (COI Declaration) 13:44, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * OK. Perhaps it would have expressed my meaning more unambiguously if I had said Spam article about a non-notable business. (Although it is not in itself an additional reason for deletion, it may be worth noting that confirmation of the impression that it seems to be written as promotion can be seen in the author's editing history. That editing history consists entirely of promotion of various businesses and organisations.) I assumed it was clear that what I wrote was an abbreviation for something like that, but evidently I was mistaken. Certainly if I had simply written "Delete Written by an account used only to promote various businesses and organisations", then my comment would have no validity at all. However, something which on its own would not be a reason for deletion can sometimes be legitimately cited in support of something else which is a reason for deletion. Indeed, if you read the whole of the essay Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, rather than just reading the section you linked to out of context, you will see that the essay explicitly acknowledges that something which "which arguably could be classified as an argument to avoid" can have valid use in the context of further comment. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:05, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I totally disagree with your reasoning here. The only non-Ad hominem part of your !vote was "article about a non-notable business".  Please concentrate on the articles, not the editors.  Thanks. -- Eclipsed (talk) (COI Declaration)  14:25, 12 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - not enough significant mentions found in reliable sources to reach notability. -- Eclipsed (talk) (COI Declaration)  14:26, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - Same reasons as above. Kumioko (talk) 15:52, 13 June 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.