Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BrightHouse (retailer)

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. (non-admin closure) CTJF83 chat 19:38, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BrightHouse (retailer)

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

Advertisement. Pevious deletion history (from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=BrightHouse ):-
- 17:00, 17 February 2009 RHaworth protected BrightHouse [create=sysop] (indefinite) ‎ (Excessive spamming)
- 17:25, 16 February 2009 Vary deleted "BrightHouse" ‎ (G7: One author who has requested deletion or blanked the page: G11: Blatant advertising)
- 14:58, 3 July 2008 Anthony Appleyard deleted "BrightHouse" ‎ (G11: Blatant advertising)
- 18:22, 2 July 2008 Cobaltbluetony deleted "BrightHouse" ‎ (G11: Blatant advertising)
- 22:09, 4 December 2007 Ioeth deleted "BrightHouse" ‎ (Speedy deleted per (CSD G11), was blatant advertising, used only to promote someone or something. (using Twinkle))
  - Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:46, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While it probably needs ongoing vigilant pruning (judging from the edit history) to avoid it being an advertising site, the inclusion of both its business model and criticisms of it seem like a reasonable basis for a useful article. AllyD (talk) 23:54, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Company is notable per WP:COMPANY since it has been "the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources". If there are particular concerns about the style in which the article is written then they can be raised on the talk page. I appreciate there have been numerous problems with this article but that shouldn't prevent us from covering this subject. It would be helpful if the nominator could explain specifically why he considers this to be an advertisement and why he doesn't believe those concerns could be addressed by rewriting the article as necessary. Adambro (talk) 08:57, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – I see no rationale whatever for deletion. Occuli (talk) 11:00, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I don't see that this version of the article is particularly spammy. The charity section could probably be given the heave-ho unless the company is particularly noted for it. It's a notable company as evidenced by the coverage in news articles as referenced in the article. Prio versions of the article may have been a disaster but that has no bearing on this article. -- Whpq (talk) 14:14, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Looks like a consumer business with the kind of public awareness needed to sustain notability. I've edited this lightly for NPOV. I would lose the charity section, and also the non-notable "awards". That jaw-dropping 29.9% APR interest rate looks like it might generate the sort of coverage needed to balance this a bit. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:26, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:27, 18 March 2010 (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.