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. Article's been improved and source so clear Keep, Moves should be discussed on the talkpage but anyway consensus is to keep (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:27, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Quicksilver (company)[edit]

Quicksilver (company) (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)

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (biographies) requirement. " It was deprodded by User:Edwardx (creator) with the following rationale "PROD tag removed. There are now independent sources.". I disagree, the coverage is trivial and in passing, and I stand by my original assessment that this company does not meet NCORP. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:21, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 10:52, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 10:52, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I expanded it to add secondary sources and provide more context. I believe it now meets the GNG. Philafrenzy (talk) 12:06, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I am sorry, but what you have added is not really relevant - the 4 or so sources are not about that company, they are about its parent holding company, Talarius, and mention Quicksilver in passing only (ex. "Talarius operates... The company’s best-known brands are Quicksilver, Silvers and Winners"). Not a single of the new refs is about Quicksilver. That totally fails in-depth requirement, and I hope you and the closing administrator will consider the policy which specifically states that trivial mentions in passing do not esabilish notability. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:51, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Talarius and Quicksilver are synonymous in my view even if, technically, they are legally separate. Personally, I have no objection to the article being moved from Quicksilver to Talarius but the best way of covering the subject will probably always be to discuss both in the same article. Philafrenzy (talk) 07:35, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I have no objection to renaming the article, but it would require a proper rewrite. I have not looked into whether Talarus is notable enough for NCORP, but on the surface it appears at the very least more notable (there is more coverage of it) than of its Quicksilver holding. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:00, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Many thanks to Philafrenzy for his kind work in expanding the article. It would have met WP:GNG and WP:NCORP before, and certainly does now. Edwardx (talk) 13:22, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Passes GNG.Zigzig20s (talk) 14:08, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:ITSNOTABLE is not a valid argument at AfD. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:51, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:37, 5 September 2016 (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.