Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Star lighter

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 of the debate was delete. W.marsh 15:51, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Star lighter

Delete, makes no real claim to notability Makemi 05:24, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, no assertion of notability. Royboycrashfan 05:27, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I also nominated Star Lighter Company under this, similarly no assertion of notability. Makemi 05:31, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete both per nom. Searching for media mentions beyond that provided in the article proved fruitless. --Kinu 06:27, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete both Advertising pschemp | talk 06:33, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as nn ads.Blnguyen 07:13, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable Avi 16:42, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Clearly the case for keeping articles about piracy and counterfeit goods has already been made on this website. If Wikipedia admins and users can accept such articles as Modchip and Evolution-X, than why would the articles on Star Lighter Company and the Star lighter be considered for deletion...unless of course the individuals who have nominated these articles for deletion engage in piracy and have a vested interest in such. If not, shouldn't these other articles about intellectual property piracy also be marked as non-notable and submitted for deletion?

"The U.S. government estimates that piracy within China costs American companies $20 billion $24 billion dollars a year in damages. The assistant secretary said the effect of Chinese piracy on European and Japanese firms made the damage exceed $50 billion dollars annually. Lash listed diverse product areas where American industry and manufacturers were hurt by Chinese piracy: recent, new and unreleased DVD movies, Pfizer pharmaceuticals, Gorman-Rupp pumps from Ohio, Zippo lighters made in Pennsylvania as well as Calloway golf clubs and New Balance sports shoes." CelebritySecurity 17:39, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. That is a bizarre reason to keep. WP:NOT the FBI. pschemp | talk 18:04, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: Are you suggesting the other articles dealing with piracy listed here also be deleted? CelebritySecurity 18:27, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment The articles you cite are about widespread technology used to violate others copyrights. Not about a single company making counterfeit products. Just walk down Canal St. in NYC any day of the week and you'll see that any one of these companies is probably not notable. The phenomenon is notable, and there are already articles such as Counterfeit and Trademark infringement to cover this. The above "keep" vote is by the author of the articles. Makemi 18:29, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

• Comment With respect, equating street-level DVD distribution with an international IP matter seems to be incorrect. I assume there are few retailers on Canal St. in possession of 750,000 counterfeit lighters.

"There is not one Zippo pocket lighter manufactured outside of Bradford, Pa. The company has spent $10 million protecting their rights in China, but where's the prosecution?" Lash asked. The assistant secretary said the Public Security Bureau was eager to prosecute a case against the Star Lighter Company of Wenzhou, Zhejiang province, which was caught red-handed with 750,000 fake Zippos, but faced resistance from the local Administration of Industry and Commerce." Strong Keep. CelebritySecurity 18:40, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment My point was that there are counterfeit Louis Vitton bags, Tommy Hilfigger clothes of all descriptions, Oakley sunglasses, basically anything with a strong brand has a knockoff there, and presumably many of these are coming from companies in China. I don't think each company which makes a specific knockoff is notable, unless aside from this it qualifies under WP:CORP. Also, please don't make it look like you're voting more than once. And frankly, I wouldn't be surprised if all the fake zippos on Canal street added up to 750,000. Makemi 19:20, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. While copyright piracy itself is a notable topic, individual pirates have to have some higher claim to notability than simply being pirates. —Cleared as filed. 19:26, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, I get about 100 emails a day for $100 Rolex watches, but that doesn't make the manufacturer notable.--Isotope23 19:31, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete both, company is non-notable even if they are counterfeiters. -- Mithent 20:27, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
• If one more reference can be provided, keep. If the UPI quote is the only one anyone can come up with, then even I'd have to vote delete. 750,000 Zippos isn't any more remarkable in the grand scheme of things than any of millions of crimes committed annually. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 02:28, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Yeah, so they make knockoff Zippos - lots of companies make knockoffs of everything every day. Assert some significance and I might change my mind. -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 06:16, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: The "point" that this article should be kept because piracy is a notable issue is bogus; it's in the aggregate that such piracy is notable, not necessarily every individual company involved in it. More evidence of this particular company's notability is needed. *Dan T.* 00:20, 12 February 2006 (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.