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. → Call me Hahc21 05:14, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mersey Model Co. Ltd.[edit]

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

No news or book coverage I can find - the former not that shocking given the age of the company and how long it's been out of business. There is quite a lot of coverage in steam model fansites, but a lot of them appear to be personal sites and I (cautiously) suggest that they aren't particularly reliable.

I don't think this has any particular reflection on the importance of the subject, or the effort of the author - it's just a really hard area to source - but sourcing is what's required. Ironholds (talk) 19:30, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mersey Models were a short lived but influential company. They made a wide range (considering the short life) of products which are generally considered to be high quality. The products are now highly sought after by collectors. Unfortunately, there is very little in the way of documentation for the short history of the company. As noted above, most of the documentation, especially relating to the products themselves, is in the form of private web sites which, I agree, aren't neccessarily reliable in a formal sense. --Roly (talk) 20:01, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah; as said, this is a pity :/. It's a fascinating field. Ironholds (talk) 22:02, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:22, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:22, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - I've added a single reference for which the GoogleBooks preview is unavailable but the search results including the following paragraph: "Mersey Model Company Ltd Trading from Cooper's Building, Church Street, Liverpool and their workshop in Wallasey in the 1930s, they sold a variety of model workshop tools, steam engines, and toy and model boats. They did not survive the...". I'm inclined to think that if the company is provided coverage in a 2011 book on steam model making of the era, it would likely have received coverage in its own day. Few newspapers of the 1930s and 40s exist today but the company seems to have made a significant impact on the history of its industry then and since and notability isn't temporary. I, too, would like to see more references and there are a few other mentions listed in GoogleBooks search results (for books also without previews) suggesting there is more coverage out there. Be nice to see this one rescued. Stalwart111 00:16, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the sourcing! I can see the full page (ah, the wonders of international copyright status) and it indeed discusses MMCL in that paragraph - a good source. I agree with you, personally, that there was probably historical coverage, but while notability is not temporary, it also has to be shown. --Ironholds (talk) 00:42, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For sure, which is why I qualified my opinion. I think there's something to be said for a company that traded for only 5 years which made products significant enough that the company is talked about in a book 70 years later. Hard to think a company like that wouldn't have received more coverage back in the day (or any day since). But yes, we need to see sources for such a claim to be verified. I'll keep working on it. Stalwart111 00:48, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I so love steam and this looks brilliant, but the one ref isn't enough, and I can't see how a company in existence for just 5 years can be notable. It's a case of they existed...and I'd love to play with one of these! Szzuk (talk) 16:20, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, → Call me Hahc21 18:05, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Short-lived company whose products are now collectible. Its existence is well documented. Not hugely notable butlegendary within its niche. Candleabracadabra (talk) 22:17, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
All true statements. Could you explain how it meets the notability guidelines, too? --Ironholds (talk) 23:52, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep -- I presume that the products are now collectors pieces, so that people will find the article useful, despite its shortlived nature. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:47, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If an article that is worth having fails the notability criteria then the notability guidelines have turned out to be inappropriate in the particular case. They are fallible guidelines and not rules. However, the information we report should be verifiable and should not be merely nostalgic reminiscence. I think the article succeeds on this count although it would be good to see it strengthened. Thincat (talk) 18:35, 17 March 2014 (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.