Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fruhling Bros. Artistic Wrought Iron Works

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. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 19:41, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Fruhling Bros. Artistic Wrought Iron Works

[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!

Fruhling Bros. Artistic Wrought Iron Works (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

WP:COI article which fails WP:CORP. Cabayi (talk) 22:06, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 22:06, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 22:06, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Concerns about relevance/significance have been addressed in the article with secondary-source information and references about the architectural significance of Fruhling Bros. Artistic Wrought Iron Works in its relation and contribution to notable buildings of the time period. I have ensured that the information in this new page is as neutral and as closely tied to the information in the historical reference material as possible. As always, further contributions to make it even more so are welcome! Thanks! Zacharyfruhling (talk) 02:52, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Zacharyfruhling (talk) 03:47, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

• Keep - The creator may have a conflict of interest but the article seems neutral to me. The discussion of the company in books and the display at the Natural History Museum Los Angeles County demonstrate notability; it is difficult assessing notability of historic companies in a pre-internet era. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:18, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:31, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

• Keep -- The sources already in the article show that the subject meets the GNG as well as NCORP. Nom's off-hand no-explanation rationale is a disservice to the deletion process. It's clearly stated in WP:ORGCRIT that "A company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." Those sources, as I said, are already in the article. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 13:23, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
• Weak delete The best sources are in the article already - the only newspaper mentions I can find relate to a lawsuit, a fire, and family events like a birthday and funeral. The existing sources are pretty local - probably not all of the Men of the Pacific Coast would be notable, and the history is of Los Angeles county only, not the state. RebeccaGreen (talk) 03:37, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:51, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

• Keep has enough reliable sources coverage in the article to pass WP:GNG regards Atlantic306 (talk) 18:45, 16 November 2018 (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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.