Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dan's Fan City

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. postdlf (talk) 16:08, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dan's Fan City[edit]

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

Not meeting the criteria for notability. Lack of verifiable information in news or websites. The other problems (original research, no sources, style and bordering on spam) could be fixed, but you would still have a fixed article on a company that doesn't appear to be notable. Dennis Brown (talk) 02:08, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can't find news articles on DFC because these people don't even use barcode scanners or cash registers in their stores, yet they are the largest INDEPENDENT retailer of ceiling fans in the USA. How is that not notable or relevant? They are not a publicly traded company, so information is not readily available, but give me a little time to put it all together. They've finally warmed up to the idea of selling their product online. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slatton (talk • contribs) 02:45, 17 April 2011 (UTC) — Slatton (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Working on documented proof of DFC being the largest independent retailer of ceiling fans in the USA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slatton (talk • contribs) 02:50, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I get what you are saying, but we don't have a choice but to have a criteria that takes the subjectivity out of the equation. In short, a company must be notable (via WP:N) and it must be verifiable (via WP:V) Think about it: if we didn't require that, I could create an article called Wild Willy's Windows R Us, claim they are the largest in the world, and it would be kept, even though it is obviously complete bullocks. You aren't being singled out, you are being treated just like everyone else who creates an article. As a side note, I am very aware of Dan's Fan City, but I still couldn't find any newspaper articles or news about them. Dennis Brown (talk) 03:02, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Non-notable company lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Fails WP:COMPANY. ttonyb (talk) 03:49, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Aside from the lack of significant coverage, the article is really just a bunch of unsourced hype. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 02:49, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Google search finds only directory-type listings, confirming that the company exists and has multiple outlets, but nothing else. Google News finds a lot of hits but they are not about the company, they are along the lines of "so-and-so, owner of the local Dan's Fan City, said..." A search for "Dan's Fan City" plus "largest" [1] found a number of claims that they are the "largest independent ceiling fan and vacuum cleaner retailer" (vacuum cleaner???) but none of these hits appear to be independent of the company; they are ads, or are just repeating what the company said. --MelanieN (talk) 23:25, 23 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.