Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Olean Lumber
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. -Splashtalk 18:34, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Olean Lumber Company & Olean Lumber
Two nearly identical articles exist for this business that appears to be non-notable outside the local community (also possible copyvio on the images) --Daedalus-Prime 01:29, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
- I'm From Buffalo, Olean is a rural suburb, and I've never heard of this company. The tone of the article makes it seem the company is too cheap for a webpage of their own. Delete CastAStone 01:42, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
- Research turns up exactly one independently sourced news article (now listed in the article) that mentions the company. Everything else is corporate directory or employment directory listings. The company thus just barely satisfies the WP:CORP criteria, although it is a borderline case and I would have preferred at least two separate sources. The bigger problem with this article is that it doesn't cite any sources whatsoever. CastAStone is, ironically, right about the company not having a web page of its own. Not only has no-one else written a corporate biography, but the company itself doesn't have an autobiography as far as I can tell. This article thus has a distinct verifiability problem, as there are no sources cited for its content, and no sources to be found. The lack of sources and the other contributions by the original author strongly indicate that this article is primary source material supplied by someone directly associated with the company itself, and is in fact not stuff that humans already know, but original research, a corporate history being first published on Wikipedia. However, because there are (a scant few) sources to be had, and becase the WP:CORP criteria are (just barely) satisfied, this is a matter for cleanup, to cite sources and to excise the unverifiable content leaving the (far smaller amount of) content that is verifiable. Weak Keep. Uncle G 02:20, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
- Keep per Uncle G and thanks for the research. Kappa 02:44, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
- Delete I think that this should just be struck down as not notable and unverifiable. Also, I was reading WP:CORP criteria, and I don't see how this could be said to be even close to allowable for entry. I was under the understanding that original research is not allowed on here. So if this is a primary source based on someone who is directly involved with the company, then it would not be allowed because it violates the first WP:CORP guideline. As for the newly added source, it does prove the company exists, but it states little else, and none of the other information in the article is cited. The guidelines call for "multiple" independent sources. One source is hardly "multiple." It obviously does not meet any of the other guildlines, so I call for deletion. will381796 02:47, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
- Multiple sources is good journalism. It is good encyclopaedism, too. I'm currently at "weak keep" because I'm allowing for the remote possibility that this content might not be original research, but simply sourced from a source that my research didn't turn up. It's unlikely, but it might have been sourced from a printed book written about the history of the company, for example. If the original author comes along and cites such a book, then the article isn't original research.
On the other hand: In the (more probable) event that no such source is cited, we don't have to delete the article to fix the problem that the sources that we can find don't cover the article content as it currently stands. We can (and should) heavily modify the article, in the way that I outlined above, getting rid of the original research whilst keeping the article.
On the gripping hand: I don't predict there being much more than two sentences that can be sourced about this company, though. That, and the lack of multiple sources, are other reasons that I'm at "weak keep". It could be argued that this article, in verifiable form, would be a perpetual {{corp-stub}} with no possibility for expansion, given the paucity of the sources. A perpetual stub with no possibility for expansion is deletable. As I said, this is a borderline case. Uncle G 23:24, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
- Multiple sources is good journalism. It is good encyclopaedism, too. I'm currently at "weak keep" because I'm allowing for the remote possibility that this content might not be original research, but simply sourced from a source that my research didn't turn up. It's unlikely, but it might have been sourced from a printed book written about the history of the company, for example. If the original author comes along and cites such a book, then the article isn't original research.
- Delete. Multiple published works in WP:CORP is just too amorphous for me, and is otherwise NN. IIRC there is a new CSD criteron for NN companies under consideration.--inksT 02:53, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
- It's the very same criterion that we use for people, for bands, and for web sites, simply phrased more generally. WP:BIO talks about newspaper coverage and independent biographies. WP:MUSIC talks about coverage in music magazines. WP:WEB talks about media attention. The WP:CORP criterion for companies is simply the same idea in generalized form. The fact that it is amorphous is a good thing. The WP:CORP criterion doesn't restrict itself to specific, explicitly denoted, forms of published works as the other criteria do. The WP:CORP criterion includes newspapers, magazines, and books, under a single umbrella of "published works". (There's a case to be made that WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, and WP:WEB should in fact be this general, too.) Uncle G 23:24, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. This looks like unverifiable original research. Gamaliel 11:18, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
- Delete as per nomination. utcursch | talk 11:27, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
- Weak keep for the reasons stated by Uncle G. An 80 year old company, a reasonably written article and a type of large local business that in this age of Home Depot and Lowes that is becoming less common, all tip the scale for me to vote keep. -- DS1953 03:22, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
- Weak keep per Uncle G. Also, may I suggest a merge of the first article into the second, which does have a bit of reference at the end, thank goodness. --Jacquelyn Marie 15:37, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
- Keep per Uncle G. Denni☯ 00:04, 6 October 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
