Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Askew Saddlery 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 no consensus‎. Star Mississippi 02:44, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Askew Saddlery Company

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Reviewed during NPP. Only has a single source, and no additional reliable sources were found online. Does not satisfy WP:NCORP or WP:GNG. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 01:05, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Missouri. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:47, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:21, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets NCORP. Significant coverage: Kansas City Journal (also [1]), Kansas City Times (also [2]), Implement Dealers Bulletin, The Atchison Daily Champion. Was apparently involved in a high-profile labour dispute in the late 1800s. 558 results on newspapers.com alone. 5 pages of results on Google books. There is a paragraph of coverage from 2021 here. C F A 💬 02:39, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability and the sources mentioned above don't provide sufficient in-depth information about the *company*, failing CORPDEPTH. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:10, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The company was dismantled in the late 1910s. We can't seriously expect modern-day levels of anti-spam sourcing. I would argue the first two sources I provided do offer significant coverage of the company itself and are entirely independent. There is more than enough secondary coverage to write a solid C-class article with the sources I provided, and, as I mentioned, there is a lot more out there. C F A 💬 14:35, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Our guidelines provide us with a mechanism to assist in determining whether a company was notable and the criteria are rooted in sourcing.

Your arguments are that on the one hand, we can't expect adequate sourcing from that period of time (over 100 years ago) - but this is the mechanism which the community has decided is best to determine notability. Otherwise it might as well be an opinion where all it takes it that someone says they believe it is notable and therefore deserves an article.

Your better argument is that you've provided two sources that offer "significant coverage" of the *company* itself and are entirely independent. The first source is from the Kansas City Journal, Sept 20 1925. In my opinion, it reads very much like a promo piece, with the company celebrating 60 years in business. The vast majority of the article focuses on the founders. You might argue that back in those days, companies were often or not associated closely with real people (not faceless corporations) and so writing about the illustrious lives, trials and tribulations of the founders was conflated with writing about the company - but we still see this sort of thing today too. Celebrities setting up companies to sell their coffee or fashion accessories and usually the coverage is focused on the celeb and not the company. Not many of those companies meet the criteria for notability either because the sourcing fails GNG/NCORP. But whatever about the merits or otherwise of the first source, none of the other sources meet the criteria. The company gets a mere mention-in-passing in second source in the same publication ("Admits Forgery Attempts").

The Kansas City Times from 7th Nov 1899 concerns the company filing a petition for an injunction, it does not provide any in-depth information about the company, fails CORPDEPTH.

If there are other good sources out there that provide in-depth "Independent Content" about the *company*, I might reconsider my !vote. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:01, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For further review of the current discussion point between HK and CFA, ideally with some other voices to establish a consensus on that issue.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 01:27, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No comment on the sources but I don't see NCORP as being intended to apply to companies long defunct. Traumnovelle (talk) 08:01, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I had a dig through archive.org and there doesn't seem to be a lot of in-depth coverage from the time. There's half a column about the company as part of the (extremely uncritical) article about founder Frank Askew in the 1901 Encyclopedia of the History of Missouri, and there's a a short front-page article in the Lincoln Star about the company merging with Harpham Bros in 1928. There are otherwise several passing mentions in biographies of people who worked for them - often with a comment that Askew were the largest saddlery business in Kansas City - and many routine reports of court cases, trade union matters and so on. It feels like they may have been a notable concern at the time, but I'd agree that the sourcing is extremely weak by modern standards. Adam Sampson (talk) 13:11, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If we step back for a minute. The company existed, etc. The question is, was this "just another company" or was it a notable company. Are you saying it was notable because it was the "largest saddlery business in Kansas City"? I kinda doubt a claim such as that meets our criteria in any case (happy to be wrong on that though). Or are there other reasons why this company was notably in its own right, and not just because the founder was well known? HighKing⁺⁺ 12:21, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NCORP states: 'The word "multiple" is not a set number and depends on the type of organization or product. Editors should recognize certain biases, such as recentism (greater availability of recent sources) when assessing historical companies or systemic bias (greater availability of English and Western sources) when discussing organizations in the developing world. Therefore, for example, a Bangladeshi women's rights organization from the 1960s might establish notability with just one or two quality sources, while the same is not true for a tech start-up in a major U.S. metropolitan area.' Seems to suggest to me that strict NCORP criteria is not required and what should be considered is GNG. Traumnovelle (talk) 07:54, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Recognising biases doesn't mean disregarding or ignoring NCORP.... HighKing⁺⁺ 12:21, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's important to take systemic bias into account but I don't think a Kansas City leather company is a subject that was meant to be covered by this policy consideration, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:32, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.