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 delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:16, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oak Manufacturing (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 references whatsoever. Does not meet WP:CORP. The prevailing argument in the 2009 AfD is laughable by today's standards. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 06:28, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and California. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 06:28, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: An article on a manufacturing company, whose website disappeared after June 2017, though I am not finding any associated takeover or liquidation coverage. The article largely consists of something like a catalogue listing of their products; the keep arguments in the 2009 AfD are not persuasive (including the link to a routine commercial announcement); fails WP:NCORP. AllyD (talk) 07:35, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"They have a fancy logo, so we have to keep them" is not a keep reason. Oaktree b (talk) 14:42, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Per above. If the company doesn't even have a website themselves that a primary source would come from, I doubt a good secondary source will pop up, especially after all these years. There's a primary sources tag on it, but the fact that it now has no sources makes it hilarious. Asparagusus (interaction) 01:33, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. There's no coverage, and regarding the prior AfD, however ubiquitous their machines may have been is just a big number, not an assertion of notability. While this is not a comment regarding the notability of the subject, I just want it on the record that I very much disagree about their logo: it is not fancy. - Aoidh (talk) 05:10, 19 September 2022 (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.