Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beckerle Lumber

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 delete. Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 00:04, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Beckerle Lumber

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

While the company gets some local coverage, it does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:01, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:01, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How do I get involved in this discussion? "list of Companies-related deletion discussions" Is it enough to reply here? Stephenbeckerle (talk) 13:59, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 20:18, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete local lumber firm, though their jingle sticks in my head from the radio ads: "it's a family tradition." I do note the two Journal News articles from 1960 but I don't think ultimately it passes since those count as 1 source. 62 Google results. Andre🚐 20:25, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no WP:CORPDEPTH. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 12:14, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
does it meet WP:CORPDEPTH now?

Please advise. Stephenbeckerle (talk) 13:57, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have added more references, more content & a picture. (and fixed some syntax errors)

I was thinking of adding more pictures? Is this advised?

Do you think the article is still in danger of being deleted?

Please advise.

PS: This is my first new article so I can use all the help I can get. Stephenbeckerle (talk) 13:55, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. In addition to the notability concerns, your username suggests that you might have a WP:COI concern with this article. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:58, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

does it meet WP:CORPDEPTH now?

Please advise. Stephenbeckerle (talk) 13:57, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify I think there could be some relevant local interest here and advocate moving it to Draft space where it can be improved over time. While it's unrealistic to think that a local commercial business will have the media coverage of a multinational corporation, the company might be of regional interest and importance. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:10, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Draftify is for developing articles, but with this article's creator now blocked, who will work on the article? Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:03, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The one thing that got some non-ROTM coverage seems to have been the fire, and that does not make notability on its own. Background on family etc. is tacked on and does not contribute. SOrry, but this does not rise to GNG standard. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:32, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. Best, GPL93 (talk) 13:54, 28 October 2022 (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.