Talk:KMC Chain Industrial

Proposed deletion of KMC Chain Industrial[edit]

The article KMC Chain Industrial has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

The company appears to lack notability. The author has courageously attempted to gather sources, however, most are very fleeting mentions or simply photographs, and these thus fall some way short of what's needed to attest to the company's notability

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Ohconfucius ^{ping / poke} 06:12, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

KMC is one of a handful of bicycle chain manufacturers. That in itself is enough to qualify it for an article. While the article is short, that is not a reason to delete it, nor does it suggest that the subject is non-notible, just that there is work to be done. With all respect to Ohconfucius, I'm going to remove the proposed deletion tag. --Keithonearth (talk) 06:34, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, many of the reference do only mention KMC in an article about a bicycle, but not all. Specifically, the KMC x10sl Gold road chain review by Warren Rossiter, Senior Tech Editor, Road at BikeRadar, and the VeloNews article that states "Lennard Zinn and Brady Kappius tested both KMC and Wippermann chains in this year’s Buyer’s Guide. You won’t find those articles online as we have more in-depth coverage in print and very little overlap between print and online content. Check your back issues." I hope that these details, plus Keith's comments above, resolve this issue. -AndrewDressel (talk) 15:26, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't doubt that the article was written by bike enthusiasts who know their stuff. However, our requirements on citation and sourcing are clear. The article as it currently stands is inadequate. The good news is that there is no requirement for the citations to be to online sources, and it would certainly be desirable to cite to those print articles if you have access to copies. By doing that, you can create an article that satisfies our requirements. Thanks for your comprehension. -- Ohconfucius ^{ping / poke} 16:05, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As it turns out, I don't have access to print copies, but I was able to find just the chain article of the Buyer's Guide online. KMC's name is used 13 times in the comparison with Wippermann, vs 44 for Wipperman, so it may not be the main topic, but is certainly more than a trivial mention, as WP:SIGCOV allows. I've also added a profile in Bicycle Retailer and Industry News about the current general manager of KMC that is specifically about KMC, and three details with references from Bike Europe including the assertion that KMC is the largest bicycle chain manufacturer in the world. I hope that is sufficient. I do not understand why you mention WP:CITE and WP:RS above. I thought the issue was notability. Are you also questioning the reliability of VeloNews, BikeRadar, and CyclingNews or of Lennard Zinn and James Huang? -AndrewDressel (talk) 16:46, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the significant improvement to the article. Yes, the policies mentioned are the cornerstones of notability because it is only through the existence of wide objective external coverage that one can go about establishing that someone or somebody is notable. Knowledge that you may have obtained anecdotally is not generally considered acceptable here on WP. The provision of citations allows the readers and fellow editors to verify the accuracy and objectivity of the claims therein. Once again, I'm not contesting the company's article per se, just that you should provide adequate sources to back up the assertions, and the sources you have added are indeed in the right direction. Thanks! -- Ohconfucius ^{ping / poke} 02:06, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, it would most helpful if you would either just propose the article for deletion again because notability has not been established, or state directly that you are satisfied that notability has been established. -AndrewDressel (talk) 03:26, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry if I was in any way ambiguous with my response above. I have no issues with the article now as it stands. -- Ohconfucius ^{ping / poke} 04:34, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad we got that sorted out, thanks for your hard work on this article Andrew. --Keithonearth (talk) 19:52, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What stands KMC for?[edit]

KMC = Korean Manufacturer of Chains? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:F5:CBD3:3A2E:191B:11CC:8711:525C (talk) 20:49, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]