Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TNT Fireworks

TNT Fireworks

[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)

not notable according to no reliable sources and WP:NCORP. Facebook source should be deleted. Tls9-me (talk) 08:32, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Alabama. Shellwood (talk) 09:14, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only news articles found are company stores telling people how to handle fireworks safely. Nothing for GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 15:01, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have added more sources to the article and removed the Facebook one. DarkNight0917 (talk) 21:05, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep After reviewing DarkNight0917's edits, I'd say the article passes WP:GNG. I also fixed up two links that did not lead to where they intended. Conyo14 (talk) 22:03, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:GNG after recent edits. Grahaml35 (talk) 19:24, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
keep per improvements to article WP:HEY. ResonantDis_tortion 17:52, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 † ^edits 03:21, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. I'm not seeing sources that meet WP:SIRS for WP:NCORP. Given the age of the company it's likely there are archives of newspapers to hunt through, but right now it's hard to guarantee NPOV. —siro χ o 10:25, 5 July 2023 (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*. I'm unable to locate any reference that meet NCORP criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 21:07, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Tricky per both sides above, but I think it is better cleaned up than deleted. Chamaemelum (talk) 01:44, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment None of the Keep !voters have pointed to any references that meet NCORP criteria for establishing notability, just WP:VAGUEWAVEs. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:21, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I decided to show a source analysis. The only thing the sources don't detail is the vast history of the company, something that would increase its notability. However I feel this table shows justification of WP:GNG. That being said, a citation is probably required for the start date of this company. It's been around a very long time. Conyo14 (talk) 23:47, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
https://corporateofficeheadquarters.org/tnt-fireworks-inc/	? Blog source (ironically uses Wikipedia for info)			✘ No
https://www.tntfireworks.com/	Own website	?	~	✘ No
https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/nonprofits-forge-successful-partnerships-with-consumer-fireworks-leader-259988801.html	Source says "NEWS PROVIDED BY TNT Fireworks" at the top of the article"	?		✘ No
https://www.coinbooks.org/resources/anb2021.pdf			Directory of companies	✘ No
https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/04800387			? Government listing of the company	? Unknown
https://tucson.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/county-is-sued-over-its-ban-on-fireworks/article_c33b7882-4920-5b79-b340-59edcc58f1be.html				✔ Yes
https://www.al.com/business/2017/06/tnt_fireworks_recalled_for_une.html				✔ Yes
https://www.wtvy.com/content/news/36000-units-of-TNT-Fireworks-being-recalled--431754923.html				✔ Yes
https://www.westernslopenow.com/news/local-news/tnt-fireworks-safe-and-responsible-use-campaign/				✔ Yes
https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/conditions-right-for-exciting-bassmaster-classic-on-the-tennessee-river-301775154.html		?	Brief name mention	✘ No
https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20110614007221/en/Buckhorn%C2%AE-Assists-with-Tornado-Disaster-Relief-Efforts				✔ Yes
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Comment I do not believe any of the 5 "green" sources listed in the table as counting toward GNG satisfy WP:SIRS for WP:CORP. (My !vote above remains as is.)

—siro χ o 02:02, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree and pretty obviously too. For example this in tucson.com about the county getting sued over its bad on fireworks has two mentions-in-passing of the company. It has zero in-depth information about the company and fails WP:CORPDEPTH. One of these days I'm gonna do a source table for GNG/NCORP so that we can explicitly evaluate CORPDEPTH and ORGIND. HighKing⁺⁺ 21:51, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Very well prepared and presented source analysis table, which gives a clear indication that that article is non-notable. I can't see any definition in the references that would indicate it was notable. Woeful sources really Fails WP:NCORP. scope_creep^Talk 11:15, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If someone here wants to take stewardship of it to avoid backdoor deletion, I think there's a promising case for draftifying here. This is an old company and there will very likely be analog sources. We just can't really guarantee NPOV without any at all. —siro χ o 11:20, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 02:13, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NCORP, the sources mentioned above don't meet the criteria, unless good analogue sources can be found. --TheInsatiableOne (talk) 14:13, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]