Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Warren and Brown

Warren and Brown

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

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Warren and Brown (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

No sources available, no news mention (wiped out by everyone else also called warren/brown) Fermiboson (talk) 09:30, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Australia. Shellwood (talk) 10:46, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
• Delete - in addition to the above, large parts of this article are copyvios from this page on the company website. It would need a fundamental rewrite to clear out the copyright material and reduce the promotional tone, but the effort is not worth it for a company that broadly fails WP:GNG. -- Euryalus (talk) 11:14, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
• Keep - removal of copyvio items, and usage of material on talk page. Australian companies of the sort fail GNG et al, specially if it is based on google searches - I dont know if part of Trove is interrogated by google or not, but there were four easy refs to find in trove - one small problem is that Warren & Brown is a 100 year old estabishment in Toorak - and is notable for its transition in products over time - but somehow the trove is not used by fellow editors very much... JarrahTree 12:10, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
• Comment A highly respected brand in auto workshops so check trade papers if you can find one. Their torque wrenches (best known for tightening head bolts) were legendary and went world-wide. The "dual signal" was a trigger release that was both felt and heard when the torque set-point had been reached, so could be used in circumstances where a dial could not be seen, in the dark, or by at least one blind mechanic — vale Ted G. Doug butler (talk) 13:39, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
• Delete I see mentions of GNG in the !votes above but this is a company therefore WP:NCORP guidelines apply. We therefore require references that discuss the *company* in detail - not their products. As per WP:SIRS *each* reference must meet the criteria for establishing notability - we require at least two of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and "Independent Content". I've seen some sources mention products but I haven't seen anything that meets ORGIND and provides in-depth information on the company. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:33, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:58, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

• Delete. It should not be difficult to find sources for a notable company in the Anglosphere. This is promotional, and not particularly useful; a company could be five hundred years old, have invented the screw, and have ten billion dollars in assets, but if it's not got substantial independent third party coverage it doesn't meet WP:NCORP. FalconK (talk) 02:05, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
• Keep per WP:HEY for the reasons given above by JarrahTree. A discussion on the products can make the company notable and there's ample coverage of that. And even if there's not consensus to keep there's ample valid reason as an alternative to deletion to Redirect to Repco which is the company that ultimately bought it, where there can be some valid discussion if necessary. Deus et lex (talk) 11:08, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Comment There's absolutely nothing in WP:NCORP that says a "discussion on the products can make the company notable" that I can see. Can you point to somewhere I might have missed? HighKing⁺⁺ 16:12, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Comment - go and read it again. A reliable source on a company's products is a valid part of satisfying that criteria. Deus et lex (talk) 08:47, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

You are mistaken. Significant, independent reviews of a company's products can render the products notable, but the company doesn't inherit that and the guideline does not say otherwise. This is intentional, since such an article could never be much more than a list of products. FalconK (talk) 00:41, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

• Such a redirect would be misleading, as W & B was the subject of a management buyout after Repco lost interest in that end of the market. Doug butler (talk) 14:09, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 13:15, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

• Comment - the reason given above by Doug Butler is not a valid one against including a redirect - Repco still owns the company. My preference is keep but it is a valid redirect. Deus et lex (talk) 21:57, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
• Comment I was hoping to find something on Google books as the company should have quite a rich history. Considering its more than 100 years old, its bound to have some kind established notabilty. It really needs a book search. scope_creep^Talk 10:51, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Sometimes a company just ticks along, doing good business for decades and decades, probably very well respected - but never seems to have been written about. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:14, 12 December 2022 (UTC)