Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abt Electronics

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 per WP:SNOW. (non-administrative closure) -- RyRy (talk) 02:34, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Abt Electronics

Largely self-sourced article about electronics store, written by employee. Includes such gems as "Another main attraction is the Panasonic Professional Plasma 103-inch 1080p HDTV which currently ranks as the largest consumer television". Declined speedy. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:18, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep per this source Seddσn ^talk ^{Editor Review} 19:24, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. How does that source meet any of the four speedy keep criteria? —C.Fred (talk) 20:55, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't like this article one bit; it's a textbook example of a conflict of interest attempting to misuse Wikipedia's open editing format for marketing. Yes, it's notable. Yes, sources exist. But nearly every sentence needs to be rewritten. Nobody would dream of sneaking into a library and pasting a press release into Britannica. That's what the single purpose account that started this article is doing to us. No comment on keep or delete, but if it stays this needs major cleanup. Durova^Charge! 19:35, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Less bothersome now per changes. Durova^Charge! 19:51, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak delete~~. The claim to notability is that they're the largest independent electronics dealer in the US. The article needs to prove it: WSJ article on them, ranking list somewhere, press coverage, awards, something independent beyond the blurb at Hoover. It could be a worthy subject; I don't think the current version is there. Source that, and I'll swing over to keep. —C.Fred (talk) 20:58, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Added further sources including a WashPo article which names them as one of the largest in the U.S. and a Newsweek article entirely about the company. Gr1st (talk) 21:12, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also added WSJ.com link to a Wall Street Journal article about them. Naturally most of it is behind a pay wall, but the full text is on the Abt website. Gr1st (talk) 21:23, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the Newsweek article, I'm swaying to weak keep. That's significant media coverage. —C.Fred (talk) 21:17, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Verifiable, reliable sources prove notability even though the original creator had an obvious conflict of interest. We don't delete articles just on the fact that an employee or related person created them. Raymie Humbert (TrackerTV) (receiver, archives) 05:04, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The article was nominated for deletion based on multiple concerns (see Durova's comment). It has been substantially improved by the work of several editors. The article creator has neither returned to improve the article nor contributed to the AfD. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:05, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - 1,100 employees, over 400 news articles, numerous book references etc = Notable and verifiable from reliable sources. If the article has COI problems or is otherwise rubbish, stub it, edit it but don't waste time deleting it if it's about a notable subject. Good work by Gr1st and Durova on this one - Peripitus (Talk) 13:40, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.