Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Genie Company

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) B dash (talk) 06:00, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Genie Company[edit]

[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)

Non notable company article created by a now blocked sockpuppet Theroadislong (talk) 21:20, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 00:16, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 00:17, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

comment Whether the company is notable or not is a reasonable question, but for the purposes of this discussion I don't think it matters who created it. The master was blocked for making death threats, which is not acceptable. Neither is socking. But the other articles they created (California towns, California earthquakes, a Norwegian reality TV series, and a motel that was defunct when they wrote about it) don't suggest any pattern of creating non-notable or otherwise problematic articles. --Worldbruce (talk) 00:47, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Looking at the sources on the article (the books/magazines, not the links to the Genie websites), as well as googling "Genie Company" or "genie door", this seems to be a notable company. Unclear why it matters to the notability of the subject that the creator of the article had some unsavory conduct on Wikipedia. Gilded Snail (talk) 17:55, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve. As written, the article relies too much on the company as a source, but a variety of reliable third-party sources containing significant coverage have been added to a "Further reading" section. They establish notability and could be mined for content. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:14, 15 April 2019 (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.