Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Totectors

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:46, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Totectors

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

No apparent signs of notability for this brand of safety footwear. The only Google results are for outlets that sell the brand, and the only news results discuss the relaunch of the brand by International Brands Group after the original manufacturer went out of business. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:00, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and United Kingdom. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:00, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable brand, synonymous with steel capped safety boots in UK industry for decades. There's plenty of coverage in copyright sources. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 15:13, 5 June 2024 (UTC).[reply]

User:WikiDan61 Please improve the article by adding information about the change of ownership. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 15:48, 5 June 2024 (UTC).[reply]
- @Rich Farmbrough: "plenty of coverage in copyright sources"? I'm not sure what that means. If it means that Totectors have applied for and received copyright protection for their brand, I don't see how that adds to notability. I could expand the article with notes about their acquisition, but I am loath to do so until we've evaluated whether the article merits inclusion / improvement. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:51, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - It means that there is coverage which cannot be accessed by simply "Googling". For older entities there will be easily accessible material via searchable on-line archives. For more recent entities there is likely to be material that was published after the widespread adoption of the Web, which will therefore be available. The period between 1930 and about 2000 is, in some senses, the hardest era to research. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 16:07, 5 June 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library gives me 21 hits in the basic search, including:
- "Safety Footwear Goes up in Size." 2003. Works Management 56 (12): 37., about the manufacturing capacity after merging with UKS Group's footwear division
- "In Full Rig.” 2003. Forestry & British Timber 32 (5): 35., about some of the safety features in their workboots
- "Brand new plant planned for Totectors". 1994. Apparel International: The Journal of the Clothing and Footwear Institute Volume 25, p. 9, about moving to Rushden.
- Northamptonshire Evening Telegraph says they were the first to make safety footwear in the UK,[1] that they won an award from the Professional Clothing Industry Association Worldwide,[2] and that they're part of International Brands Group (i.e., is able to verify the last sentence in the article, which is currently uncited).[3] I think that this article is the most important find, however, as it reports some recent events but also outlines the company's history in ~200 words, which easily exceeds the standard for SIGCOV proposed in Wikipedia:One hundred words.
All of this give me, at minimum, grave doubt about the claim that this is not a notable business, and I think we should keep it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:13, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
* Keep - one of the articles about the company's acquisition has a section about its history and significance in the town where it was based. [4] I also see mention of it in ''The Victoria History of the County of Northampton'' book from 1902, and various industrial journals have mentioned them -- most of them in trivial ways, but at least one referring to them as ''famous footwear''. It seems like it has marginally enough notability. WmLawson (talk) 03:28, 11 June 2024 (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.