Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abraham & Straus

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.--Wizardman 14:18, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Abraham & Straus

Article has no independent source and fails to source its statements. and per Jimbo no text is better than having unsourced. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 21:50, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep and Speedy Close You better get busy and start deleting all 1 million articles that were created before sourcing was required. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 22:20, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep This is an {{unreferenced}} maintenance tag issue, not a deletion issue. I haven't bothered to check yet because I happen to know they were a massive outlet akin to JC Penny, but will source in a few minutes. To cite WP:ATT: "this policy should not be used to cause disruption by removing material for which reliable sources could easily or reasonably be found" or at WP:AFD: "consider...adding a "cleanup" template, instead of bringing the article to AfD."--Fuhghettaboutit 22:24, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy keep per other "keep" recommendations above. I believe that the nominator may have misinterpreted Jimbo's comments regarding sourcing. But in any event, here are some sources: [1] [2] [3] --Metropolitan90 22:44, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Added some material from New York Times 1893 article and inline citation markup. There was actually some well sourced material present, though as naked links which I have refactored. Note that the Jimbo appeal to authority material is apparently from here; note the "unless it can be sourced" line nestling in there.--Fuhghettaboutit 23:05, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep An historic new York City-area chain store that needed to be improved, not deleted. AfD is a rather blunt instrument to use to have sources added. Speedy keep based on notability and addition of sources. Alansohn 03:11, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep: This article definately needs to stay; there are a few sentences that need attribution but if you look carefully at the sourcing throughout, there is much more than many other entries. I will look through and add a few. As the person who added stuff from their corporate history that is listed at the bottom, i will make sure the sentences that came from that document are attached up topBrandlandUSA 03:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep: Plenty of sources, but it needs cleanup - CosmicPenguin (Talk) 04:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per all above. Besides, the header of that e-mail said Zero information is preferred to misleading or false information, which is not the same thing. -- Dhartung | Talk 04:40, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and close as WP:SNOW This is what WikiProjects are for, not AFD. Tuxide 07:40, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep: As other users said, needs cleanup not deletion. Brooklynl 12:39, 20 March 2007 (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.