Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pop-a-Lock

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 of the debate was keep (no consensus). Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:51, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pop-a-Lock

advert Flapdragon 01:37, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Nothing but an advertisement. Devotchka 05:28, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and then go back in time and keep the ad from ever being placed. Destroy all ads. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 06:28, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
• Research turns up two articles in the Wall Street Journal for starters. The WP:CORP criteria are satisfied. Keep. Uncle G 11:10, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
• I disagree. Even if that were true, the company could only be said to have met one of those criteria - "The company or corporation has been the subject of multiple published works". If it were the subject of those two minor Wall Street Journal articles, I would say that Pop-a-Lock had met the letter, but not the spirit, of the WP:CORP criteria - which are only intended as "rough guidelines". However, Pop-A-Lock isn't really the subject of those articles at all. The articles are both about franchises generally; Pop-a-Lock just happens to be prominently mentioned. This article has in no way established sufficient notability for inclusion in Wikipedia. Delete. TheMadBaron 16:28, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: The article does not appear to be an advertisement. For example, it states that a background check of the company's franchisees revealed that one was guilty of "grand theft auto." I am uncertain on the notability of the company, though. Neutral --TantalumTelluride 22:06, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. What criteria for deletion does this satisfy? It's verifiable. Independent and reputable references are cited. It's not an advert - in fact, it's a textbook example of NPOV, reporting facts without making value judgements, sourcing all claims, and identifying the one case where the source has a conflict of interest. It's bitty and needs cleaning up, but that is not a criterion for deletion. The company is not of world-shattering notability, but does satisfy the guidelines, and WP:NOT paper. So how does this article meet the deletion criteria? — Haeleth Talk 12:52, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Which WP:CORP guidelines does it meet exactly? Flapdragon 01:32, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
• keep -- as per Haeleth -- Geo Swan 23:57, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

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.