Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1-800-GOT-JUNK?

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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:17, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 1-800-GOT-JUNK?

This article is very useless and has no WP:CITE. -- Shane ^{(talk/contrib)} 05:07, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment not enough to keep Mayhew 15:58, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete -- Shane ^{(talk/contrib)} 05:08, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:14, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Notable and verifiable company and the article doesn't seem to go too far into free ad territory. Absence of citations IMO is not a criteria for deletion unless the article is legally dangerous without it. Be bold and add some. Additional comments added later: I agree with those contributors below that the article needs a lot of work and "perking up". My vote isn't intended as an opinion on the quality of the article; only that the subject matter is worthy of an article. 23skidoo 14:06, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as per WP:CORP, "The company or corporation has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself." A quick google search yields several media articles:The Globe and Mail, Wisconsin State Journal,Entrepreneur Magazine, and The Costco Connection Scorpiondollprincess 15:21, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - So, if cites and notability have been ostensibly established, is someone going to perk up the article? As it stands, the article is an advert, and appears mainly to prop up the related puff-piece about its founder Brian Scudamore. In their current forms, neither article states nor implies notability, and I'd be perfectly serene about nominating both for deletion. Perhaps the author would take the initiative? Tychocat 15:59, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep - As per Tychocat's suggestion, though if it stays in its current incarnation too long I'd switch to Delete. Torinir _{( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options )} 17:32, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - I note the original writer is an anonymous IP, whose only contributions are here and to Scudamore's puff-piece resume. I am not filled with hope that anything constructive is coming out of my leisurely suggestion. Tychocat 11:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per Scorpiondollprincess. More "press" is at google news. Agent 86 17:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment, notable company that very likely meets WP:CORP... but the article in it's current state merits a call to 1-800-GOT-JUNK as it is unverified trash. I've tagged it for verification and urge those who have produced sources to check the article against them, edit, & source. Feel free to boldly remove the tags if this is done.--Isotope23 18:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep this company very much passes WP:CORP the page just needs some work. Whispering 21:25, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Meets WP:CORP, as Whispering says. All that is needed is a little tidy up. Thε Halo ^Θ 22:59, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment I've never been deferred to nifty. Whispering 23:17, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

• If, and only if, this article is edited into a reasonable encyclopedic form, keep. -- The Anome 23:37, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and Expand. It seems to pass WP:CORP - it's a large, reputable company with press coverage. Actually pretty surprised that the article is as small as it is. --JD79 00:55, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. Very notable company - billboards, ads, truck sides, are part of the popular culture today. Arevich 01:05, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep improve FancyPants 09:52, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and expand audreyhep 17:40, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
• keep please the article is not useless and subject is notable too Yuckfoo 18:22, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete Obviously spam. Also, would anybody like to guess what I stuck up my butt today?? 172.148.162.121 01:33, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I dont know why putting luncheon meat up you butt makes this a deletable article. FancyPants 20:43, 22 July 2006 (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.