Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Acushnet Company
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Keep --Allen3 talk 11:51, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
It even reads like an advertisement. Delete. Sholtar 04:22, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete ad Dsmdgold 01:55, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep I'm sorry, but this company seems notable. History21
- Keep As a major employer of Southeastern Massachusetts with a long and notable history it should be kept. It just needs to be rewritten as to not sound like an advertisement. Mike (Unsigned 1st-3rd edit by IP 12.25.34.133. ~Mbsp)
- Delete Advertisement, not encyclopedic. Djadek 09:28, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete advertising. JamesBurns 09:31, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and cleanup. Notable sportswear manufacturer. Capitalistroadster 10:04, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Cleanup Can I please convince the deletionists to at least do some casual research before they point and shoot? per 12.25.34.133 who, anonymous or no, is right on the money (my mother worked for them for a while, and I heard about them constantly growing up) -Harmil 10:30, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I've re-worked the aritcle and added some more detail. These folks have been making the #1 golf ball in pro golf for 57 years. How are they not notable, exactly? -Harmil 11:01, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I've heard of them and I'm not even a golfer. --Calton | Talk 11:06, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd rather see it become a start to the presently missing Fortune Brands article, until space issues force otherwise. Fortune Brands is an NYSE co.--this is just one subsidiary. Let's start big and work our way down. I've heard of Titleist even tho' I'm NOT a golfer, but I'm guessing Acushnet is only a small part of their history. Niteowlneils 15:27, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Also looks like the first version was copyvio and should be dealt with accordingly. Niteowlneils 15:43, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- This subsidiary is quite notable on its own, and keep in mind that Fortune Brands is just an umbrealla holding company. They own Tequila companies, shoe makers, office supply companies, lock makers, bathroom fixture makers, etc. Because of this weird diversity, I think it makes sense to have one article for the holding company and one for each major categorical business unit (such as Acushnet, which is the sporting goods division), and possibly even one each for the really well-known individual brands that we already have like Titleist, Jim Beam, Swingline, and DeKuyper. Yes, a company can be so huge and diverse that it can be worth several entries in Wikipedia. Take Ford for example, though I will grant that Ford is "F" on they NYSE where Fortune Brands has to slum with the two-letter "FO".... -Harmil 03:07, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, the holding company stub, Fortune Brands has been created. I think when you see that page, and think about the fact that they employ 32,000 people world-wide, the idea of an article for this division will not seem quite so odd. -Harmil 04:19, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- This subsidiary is quite notable on its own, and keep in mind that Fortune Brands is just an umbrealla holding company. They own Tequila companies, shoe makers, office supply companies, lock makers, bathroom fixture makers, etc. Because of this weird diversity, I think it makes sense to have one article for the holding company and one for each major categorical business unit (such as Acushnet, which is the sporting goods division), and possibly even one each for the really well-known individual brands that we already have like Titleist, Jim Beam, Swingline, and DeKuyper. Yes, a company can be so huge and diverse that it can be worth several entries in Wikipedia. Take Ford for example, though I will grant that Ford is "F" on they NYSE where Fortune Brands has to slum with the two-letter "FO".... -Harmil 03:07, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Looks like an ad for a company I've never heard of. --BradBeattie 04:39, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - golf puts me into a coma, but even I know about this golf ball company --Mothperson cocoon 00:12, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Titleist is a brand even a non-golfer has heard of (or seen the ads for). Uppland 12:55, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, ad. Radiant_>|< 13:40, July 12, 2005 (UTC)very well, keep per the below. Radiant_>|< 09:40, July 15, 2005 (UTC)- STRONG KEEP You've got to be kidding me. A hundred year old company, one of the most important companies in the game of Golf, and someone is seriously considering deleting it? Titleist golf ball production has only been going on since 1932. Yes, it was bought by a larger company, but only after establishing a very notable history of its own first. Unfocused 14:56, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. It's not an ad. It is about an important company. Fg2 07:51, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Notable company, not advertisment enough to make this delete-worthy. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:09, 13 July 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.