Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shelby Gem Factory

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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:46, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shelby Gem Factory

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

This is an advitorial. Should be deleted per WP:CORP and WP:PROMO. Sources on the article are primarily the company itself, organizations whose sole purpose is to promote business in the state or region, a smattering of local news stories that primarily consist of interviews with the principals of the company, and two brief mentions out of Chicago and Detroit in articles about tourism in the region. It is chock full of unsubstantiated claims of importance that do nothing but serve to promote. John from Idegon (talk) 19:40, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Reliably sourced. Meets WP:GNG. Was a "first" in its field. And it was a DYK. Obviously, no compliance with WP:Before. John from Idegon's content dispute is no reason to Delete; it is irrelevant to the matter at hand. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:55, 28 September 2017 (UTC) User:7&6=thirteen 19:50, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep for reasons of User:7&6=thirteen. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 19:58, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 20:05, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 20:05, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Several editors, myself included, have worked to remove and keep out advertorial language from this article, leaving only what could be substantiated. It meets GNG with RSs and even, as 7&6=thirteen points out, passed DYK review. I'm not sure what prompted this nomination but IMO it is clearly misguided. —GrammarFascist _contribs ^talk 06:59, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
keep Meets WP:GNG. Samat lib (talk) 15:02, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The topic is adequately covered in sources that appear sufficiently reliable and independent, the article is not blatantly promotional, and the company has a claim of particular notability reflected in "The company makes a wider variety of gem stones than any other company in the world" (with multiple sources to support the claim). The company may not be among the Fortune 500 and seems to have only attracted local interest, but it is adequately notable. —BarrelProof (talk) 20:25, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per everyone above - The factory is covered in reliable sources and as such meets GNG, BEFORE doesn't appear to have been followed. –Davey2010^Talk 22:38, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete since most of the references rely on PRIMARY sources (interviews, company announcements) and although the references are all secondary independent publications, the articles themselves are not intellectually independent and therefore fail the criteria for establishing notability WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND. Another reference is an inclusion in a list of activities in the Idlewild region and fails WP:CORPDEPTH. A topic must have at least two references that meet the criteria for establishing notabilty and therefore must be intellectually independent. Perhaps one of the Keep !voters above can provide two references that they believe gets this topic beyond the notability argument? -- HighKing⁺⁺ 13:27, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nothing in Google scholar. I found that there are two more search terms, ICT and Shelby Gemstone Factory. The Pure Michigan source only has a paragraph, but it still contributes to GNG notability. The Oceana Herald Journal 40-years article is helpful. The Detroit News article requires going to a library. Nom has a point to the extent that this article could use some toning down from the fawning, and I've made some edits in that regard. But there is also a sense in the sources of family friendliness, which if we follow the sources, some of this will show up in the article, and this is not a reason for WP:PROMO deletion. Unscintillating (talk) 03:04, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Hi Unscintillating which references are available online? Can you post here? -- HighKing⁺⁺ 20:46, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Like I said, the Oceana 40-years article is helpful. I had trouble with several of the sources, but I don't do video, so it might be that explains two that I couldn't see. I also had trouble with the Northern Express source, but I found it in a Google cache. Have you looked at Google Books? I recall one of the snippets is from 1994, where while the claim that is still being made appears to no longer be true, was likely true in 1994. As for the technology, the best source I found was the FAQs page from the company. Unscintillating (talk) 00:03, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - As creator of the article I used several library books, as I have like these reference books I used in producing 500 Did You Know articles. During this article's Did You Know, there were no objections to any of the references used. I also used newspaper clippings for references.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 09:47, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There does appear to be a small number of references, a lot of which are travel guides and such like, that provide details on Shelby Gem Factory or mention the factory. For example, Michigan Curiosities: Quirky Characters, Roadside Oddities & Other Offbeat Stuff. Given that others here have stated there are also references available that may be difficult to find available online, I'm satisfied it meets the criteria for notability. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 11:44, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WP:Snowball? 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:38, 5 October 2017 (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.