Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jclemens (talk | contribs) at 04:46, 10 June 2010 (Reverted edits by Snottywong (talk) to last version by DGG). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Erker's Optical

Erker's Optical (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

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

Searching Google News and Books do not deliver any sources that suggest notability for this company. The one source provided is not enough to pass notability thresholds. Drmies (talk) 18:53, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

• Reluctant keep The (reliable) source states that it is "the oldest family owned optical company in the United States" which asserts some significance. De728631 (talk) 19:00, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
• Keep if sourced. I saw this article while patrolling new pages. The original title was horrendous, and it has been renamed. I know nothing of this topic, and the article doesn't provide much info. The article does assert claims of notability but does not back up those claims with reliable sources. I vote delete unless someone can get valid sources, then keep. — Timneu22 · talk 19:21, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Timneu, are you saying keep or delete? "Keep if sourced" and "delete unless sourced" boils down, I think, to the same thing, but the closing administrator can't rightly know at which time the article has had sources added for your initial delete (?) to be turned into a keep. Drmies (talk) 07:37, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
• Delete. I question the reliability of the lone source in that local business papers are not know to critically examine and follow-up on what they are told in interviews. In all likelihood, the St. Louis Business Journal is reporting what they have been told by the owners of the store. The main claim-to-fame of the business is that they were the official photographer for the 1904 World's Fair, however, I have different sources stating that William Rau was the official photographer of that event () and others stating that Jessie Beals was (. Location (talk) 22:24, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment So it seems there were several official photographers, including Beals and Rau. This source also states that Jessie Beals "became an official photographer", not the official one. Therefore I think it is absolutely possible that Erker's also sent an accredited photographer. De728631 (talk) 00:53, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Merge with August Erker. Rau and Beals were well known photographers and there are plenty of sources documenting their work. The same cannot be said of this subject. Given that Erker's was/is in St. Louis, it is more likely that they simply supplied material to photographers: . The founder's brother, August Erker was a (non-notable) photographer but he was a gold medalist at the 1904 St. Louis Olympics. (Search Google News and Books for August and AP Erker to see if you dig up anything more substantial. I think there is more on AP, but nothing I would consider as encyclopedic or as noteworthy as August's achievements.) Location (talk) 04:13, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

• Delete This is pretty well an advertisement for a St. Louis retailer of eyeglasses and contact lenses, posing as a historical article about a famous photography studio. I'd have to see a source from 1904 as proof of whether the photographer was as notable as the specs company PR says it is. While the 1904 St. Louis World's Fair was notable, that doesn't mean that everything associated with it was. I'd like to see the article about August Erker expanded to include more than his athletic accomplishments, but I don't see this as a redirect to him either. Mandsford 12:46, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
• Keep per De728631 at top and expand with August Erker info above, or merge as suggested. -12.7.202.2 (talk) 16:48, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Note to closing admin: Above user was blocked shortly afterwards for sock puppetry. Location (talk) 18:08, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

• Keep This company may not be directly significant to history, but it's one of those little stories that dips into history on occasion. They were the official photographers for the 1904 World's Fair. This company may not have organized the fair of built the buildings, but they still played a role in the fair. The company supplied eyeglasses for Charles Lindbergh. They weren't sitting in the plane when Lindbergh flew over the Atlantic, but they were still involved in that event in a small way. Also, the co-founder was an athlete who competed in the first Olympic Games ever to be held in the United States. Loopygrumpkins (talk) 20:32, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I think the trouble with the "official photographers" and "supplied Charles Lindbergh" claims is that the only source for this is the company itself. (The local business journal simply appears to be reiterating their claims.) It could be true, but there is a lack of independent reliable sources for the main claim to notability. Certainly too weak, in my opinion, for a stand-alone article.Location (talk) 21:23, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

• Keep Official photographers of the 1904 World's Fair, whose pictures were seen around the world, and preserved for history. What could make a photograph company more notable more than that? Plus the stuff Location mentions makes it notable. And as De728631 said up top, if its "the oldest family owned optical company in the United States" then its notable for that. Dream Focus 03:49, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
• Keep sufficient historical notability DGG ( talk ) 03:18, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

• AfD debates (Organisation, corporation, or product)
• AfD debates