Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Borro

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 no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:52, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Borro[edit]

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

Article doesn't appear notable: WP:CORP, WP:WEB, Advertising. If the original editor, who does not appear to have a user account, meant to create an article explaining the rise of pawnshops as alternatives to the tightening credit market and had only one example at hand, perhaps the article could be expanded to include other firms (besides the single one for whom the article is named) that are positioning themselves in the same way. As it stands currently it appears to be simple advertising and unencyclopedic. Sctechlaw (talk) 03:52, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article, does at the moment appear to be self promoting. However, this company in the UK has gained a lot of press and is on the TV through both advertising and related financial daytime discussions. There was even a prime-time Channel 4 documentary about it (referenced within the article recently). For that reason, it is of relevant notability but the article needs to be edited to reflect that. Googly75 (talk) 09:31, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:01, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will state again, i feel that this company has a right to be here. They have had a lot of press, mainstream TV news even a documentary about them. Just their existence has a reflection on our modern society. Plus the fact that they pawn ferraris from bankers who have since lost their money, is an additional reflection on our current financial predicament and thus shows notability. This should stay. I have since changed some references and tried to make this page less of an advert, which was obviously initially poorly written.Googly75 (talk) 20:40, 27 April 2011 (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.