Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Healthy Back Store

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. The article has changed significantly since it was nominated, having checked the 1 Feb version I cannot fault the original nomination one bit. Credit to those who have improved the article. Daniel (talk) 04:02, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Healthy Back Store

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

Advertising for a non notable company. Local refs only, which are not discriminating enough to show notability DGG ( talk ) 22:33, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I was actually prepared to G11 this. I couldn't find any significant news mentions that would have shown notability, and it reads like advertisement. — kikichugirl ^speak up! 23:24, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails ~~WP:NPLACE~~ WP:ORG. --ToonLucas22 (talk) 14:26, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Um, that isn't remotely relevant as this discussion is about a business, not a place. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:55, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well at least now you point to the correct guideline, but its still an exceptionally weak argument without explanation (see WP:JUSTA) and the fact you quoted the wrong guideline doesn't exactly instill confidence that you made a real attempt to determine notability here. Deletion discussions are serious matters and you shouldn't "vote" without careful consideration. (This reflects a general pattern in you AfD activity, I noticed.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:22, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:12, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the article could be improved, certainly, but the company does appear to be notable. There is plenty of RS coverage in books and newspapers to warrant an article. Pinging @MatthewVanitas: who accepted this at AfC for input. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:55, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - maybe my Advert-radar is off from doing hundreds of Declines of AFC drafts that are blatant "our product is amazing, buy it!" schlock. This article however could only marginally be construed as advertising, in that it mentions the founder's cited "legend" and the number of branches, which is nothing like blatant spam. I think the "local refs" judgment is also a bit harsh; the Washington Post is one of the most prominent newspapers in all of the USA, not just a hometown rag that only covers the immediate area. In any case, to balance it out I put in a few more footnotes to US News, Entrepeneur, and a couple other sources, moved around some content to focus on the historical interest of the business development, etc. That should satisfy concerns. MatthewVanitas (talk) 13:42, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It originally had a product list that I removed. I suppose that is where the idea it was ad-like came from. I agree, though, that it is nothing at all like a G11 case. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:25, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -The article has been improved since it was nominated for deletion. It really does not read an advertisement any longer. To evidence notability, I have flooded in there few more sources from HighBeam. Subject meets WP:NCORP standard. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 02:24, 7 February 2015 (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.