Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kershaw Knives

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. Mailer Diablo 09:52, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kershaw Knives

No evidence that this company meets the criteria set in WP:CORP. howcheng {chat} 06:17, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

• neutral company is a well known knifemaker and probably meets the guidelines, but I'm generally against this type of article and I think the guidelines are too loose. Phr (talk) 06:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Fails WP:CORP. tmopkisn ^tlka 07:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• For related discussions, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ginsu and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roselli Knives. Uncle G 10:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment if you think an article fails WP:XYZ could you please consider telling us WHY it fails? Otherwise we're peeing in the wind a little if we dont know much about the subject.... TYVM :-) Jcuk 18:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Fails WP:CORP. But I'm beginning to see that it is impossible to have any knife company deleted. KarenAnn 23:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Most notability guidelines WP:XYZ are of the form "to be noteworthy, an XYZ must be A or B or C or (D excluding D1 or D2) or E... So a statement that it fails is primarily a statement that the person does not see how it meets any of A, B, ... E.... If you disagree and want it kept, explain how it meets any of A, B, C... preferrably with evidence from independent reliable sources. The nomination was "no evidence that this company meets". This is a subsidiary of another company, so presumably private. The only WP:CORP criteria it has a chance at then is the first. The article has only external links to the company's own website, and no references. That is certainly no evidence of being the subject of multiple, independent, non-trivial published coverage. GRBerry 03:05, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I think such coverage probably does actually exist, at least in the specialty press. This is a well-known knifemaker and there are many knife enthusiast publications (they're similar to gun mags) likely to have published reviews of the company's knives and so forth. Otherwise, yeah, it's just spam. I'd rather see a biographical article about Ken Onion. Phr (talk) 11:47, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Massmato 16:32, 22 July 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.