Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Knox Glass Bottle Company

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 keep. --Coredesat 06:23, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Knox Glass Bottle Company

For your consideration, a non-notable local bottlemaking company, which was bought up by another non-notable bottlemaking company now defunct. An attempt has been made to show some kind of notability - an apparently ground-breaking decision involving the company in Mississippi. Nuh-uh. It's just corporate cheerleading from the lawfirms website ("define in detail" is the relevant weasel phrase). This fails WP:CORP. Eusebeus 10:55, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep It's informative. It's not promotional. Someone has written an entire book on the company's long history, beginning in 1775. A neutral third party taking time to write about a topic is a stong indicator that some other people will also find the topic interesting and informative. So, what's the problem? Derex 11:59, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Fair enough. I believe the book was not an independent project though; rather it was a commissioned piece. Eusebeus 12:06, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep if the article can be expanded to make a case for the company's notability. Since there's a book about the company, and since it started in 1775, it may have notability for some reason or another. Alternatively, if the court case makes it notable, then there should be more information about the court case. --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 15:41, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unless notability can be shown. Vectro 18:23, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep The company appears quite notable in both the glass business and with regards to the court case (cited in a surpreme court decision [1]). I learned there there is a sizable community interested in glass markings, and Knox seems to be a popular mark ([2],[3]. The jars are apparently a collectors item too [4]. All in all, for a company who's time came and went before the internet, it seems that plenty of people are still talking about them. - CosmicPenguin (Talk) 21:30, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Meets the Pokemon test. Gamaliel 01:29, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep per above. --badlydrawnjeff talk 10:55, 16 October 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.