Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coit Cleaners

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. Robert T | @ | C 21:30, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Coit Cleaners

Advertising, unless someone can convince me they meet WP:CORP Dalbury(Talk) 21:09, 21 November 2005 (UTC) - Dalbury(Talk) 01:38, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep I'm fairly certain it has more than a million customers as it has been around for 55 years and has franchises on two continents. They hardly need to advertise on Wikipedia. WAvegetarian 22:28, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment One million customers meets WP:CORP. Do you know of any way that can be verified. - Dalbury(Talk) 01:15, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
      • Comment. They have 85 company owned locations world wide, including I now find in London, England. They have 75 franchises in the U.S., Canada, and Thailand. [1] I find it highly unlikely that they have fewer than 1000 employees between these 160 locations plus upper management. I can have my dad, who works for EEOC in Seattle, check their file to be certain, but I don't think that's necessary. His source wouldn't be available to the Wikipedia community so I'm not sure how much use it would be. Guess that depends on how much my word is worth to the editors reading this. --WAvegetarian 01:52, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. There was also an EEOC sexual harassment claim that was settled recently and given WAVegetarian's testament. Capitalistroadster 23:25, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as it likely meets the notoriety test. Jtmichcock 02:06, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - WAvegetarian has convinced me the company meets WP:CORP. I am still concerned about the links to Coit Cleaners in Parquetry, Carpet and Curtain, which still look like adverising to me. I'll let someone decide whether to remove those, however. - Dalbury(Talk) 01:38, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep per above --Rogerd 02:58, 24 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.
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. - Mailer Diablo 14:31, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Coit Cleaners

created this article as just a modest piece of info on Coit Cleaners, a compnay I am fimiliar with. Since then this has become a place where users have spread insulting lies and falsaifed information on the topic. Every edit, since my opening one has either focused on irelavant sexual harasment cases, or misinformation. I have had to correct this article again and again. Just now I saw that another guy keeps adding sections on a sexual harrasment on Lou Kearn. (Who just happens to be my grandpa) Now let's cut the crap. Just delete this and we won't have anymore junk on sexual harasment or falsaifed information. If people just keep screwing this up there is no point in having it. It's not an important article anyway. Tobyk777 06:30, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Weak Keep- I'm not entirely convinced of the notability of this company, but I'll give it the benefit of the doubt. As for the sexual harrassment, this article seems to indicate that it's not just a spurious claim. Just because something you don't like is in an article does not mean the whole thing should go. Reyk 06:47, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as per previous vote. Nominator should make himself familiar with Wikipedia:Vanity guidelines. There is verifiable evidence from the EEOC of problems so it should stay. Capitalistroadster 08:25, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep per Reyk. I nominated this company for deletion last time, but was convinced otherwise by the discussion. The sexual harassment suit is documented. the only "falsified information" I'm aware of is the mistaken change of the company's headquarters to Arizona, which is easily rectified. -- Dalbury(Talk) 10:12, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. Here is the sequence of events, which I think might prove instructive to other editors who come here to promote a company.
  1. I found an egregious advertising link to Coit Cleaners in the Parquetry article, which had been inserted by the creator of the Coit Cleaners article.
  2. That led me to Coit Cleaners, which seemed non-notable (and also spammish), so I researched the company.
  3. The led me to the lawsuit information, which I inserted in the article. (My source, listed in the article, is the EEOC report on the settlement.)
  4. Now the original author of the article no longer wants the article to exist. A cautionary tale, I'm sure. I'd never have found the lawsuit info if the person hadn't spammed Parquetry.
BTW, the original author reverted my edits, so you all have not been discussing the article as it actualy is. If anyone goes to the article and doesn't see the info on the lawauit, if you'd be kind enough to revert it back in, that'd be great. Herostratus 12:42, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment I went through steps 1 and 2, myself, leading to the original nomination. During the discussion, I was convinvced by others that the company did indeed have some claim to notability. I was still bothered by the spam-like links in other articles, but decided to not remove them because my objectivity might be questioned. -- Dalbury(Talk) 13:13, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep under previous AfD. The article history does not support Toby's claims. Gazpacho 18:55, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep per previous vote. I'm sorry that the creator is upset that a vanity piece turned into an informative article on the company and some of it's affiliates practices. Within the next 24 hours I will add citations for all of the info I have added to this article and specifically tag all non-sourced claims. This should address any claims as to misinformation, which I will note is not a valid cause for wholesale deletion. --WAvegetarian (talk) (email) (contribs) 19:39, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: I've rewritten the discription section and provided sources for all of that. All of the harassment section is verifiable from the provided links. The only unverifiable claim was that of "world's largest." The company's website claims to be "one of the world's largest," so that's what the article now says. Everything is verifiable. The company is also notable per community consensus in the previous AFD. (As it is a privately held company there is very little information available on employment figures for Coit, but according to this the main headquarters employs 100 people.) There remains no reason for deletion other than the founder's family being upset that the harassment settlement is a matter of public record. --WAvegetarian (talk) (email) (contribs) 02:08, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep article, and link this AFD to WP:VAIN as a cautionary tale for anyone who thinks they should write a spam article. Them that lives by the sword... Grutness...wha? 00:19, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak keep more like a news story though. Stifle 23:59, 9 December 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.