Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Franklin American Mortgage 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 delete. Randykitty (talk) 16:22, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Franklin American Mortgage Company[edit]

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

Listed on a 500 list, which shows it was profitable (until 2004), but making money is hardly notable in the business world. Other than that, just mentions their sponsorships, which is effectively continuing the sponsorships, promotionally. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:33, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 December 3. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 06:59, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:46, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:46, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:16, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 09:57, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable local business.--Раціональне анархіст (talk) 15:25, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Highbeam returned one detailed article on the firm, now referenced into the article. This does quote someone's opinion that the firm's founder "is admired in the industry". It still feels to me that this is just a local firm going about its business, but identification of any further detailed coverage could take it to the verge of WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 20:47, 18 December 2014 (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.