Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Furniture Choice

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. Sandstein 08:46, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Furniture Choice[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)

~~Fails the new standards at WP:NCORP. 2Joules (talk) 17:13, 6 July 2018 (UTC)~~[reply]

Text by confirmed sockpuppet struck. -The Gnome (talk) 07:23, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Much too promotional for my liking. Co-sign what above user said, most of sources are industry websites or non-notable awards. Etzedek24 ^{(Would it kill ya to leave an edit summary?)} 17:25, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non -notable and too much promotional in tone . Kpgj hpjm 17:57, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This page seems very similar to other pages such as Furniture Village or Barker and Stonehouse (which definitely reads a lot like an advert in some places, unlike this one) or Harvey's Furniture. I don't see how they can be allowed and this one not. That would be completely unreasonable. Regarding the tone, I have edited it to sound more neutral and less promotional— Preceding unsigned comment added by Chickabiddybex (talk • contribs) 22:34, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a sustainable argument for retaining an article. Problems with articles on other similar firms can be dealt with in their own right. AllyD (talk) 06:40, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator is a sockpuppet, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/FreeatlastChitchat. D4iNa4 (talk) 18:43, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:07, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:07, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:07, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nominator is a now-blocked sock, but their point about the article failing WP:NCORP stands. Likewise, I fail to see how the article meets NCORP and SIGCOV, as none of the sources assert a credible claim to significance for the company.--SamHolt6 (talk) 01:11, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The article describes a firm going about its business, with no indication of encyclopaedic notability in the text or in shortlisting for an award. Searches find some press coverage of a research release by the firm (e.g. Birmingham Post Jan 2016 – via HighBeam (subscription required) ) but neither that nor anything else that I can see is sufficient for WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 06:40, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, though I'm not at all comfortable with endorsing the actions of a sockpuppet in any way. We need a better way of dealing with this (unfortunately not uncommon) special case. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:39, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Any promotional language has been removed and information regarding notability has now been added. The company's fly tipping campaign has received a great deal of press coverage throughout the years both from the research findings and the development of a recycling tool. The article also now shows the company has been nominated by two independent bodies for 'notably growing a business online' and also includes mention of the exclusive deal struck with a popular ITV show where their products were the main focus of the segment. My argument is that the article has been improved enough that it does now fit the criteria to be included.Chickabiddybex

Please edit your first comment, rather than adding a second keep vote. Etzedek24 ^{(Would it kill ya to leave an edit summary?)} 10:24, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Still looks a bit promotional to me . Kpgj hpjm 16:18, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Which part is promotional? I don't see which part is promotional, but can edit anything you think might be. Also, please forgive my mistakes in commenting in the wrong place etc, I'm still learning.User:chickabiddybex —Preceding undated comment added 20:20, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable company; disagree as to it being WP:PROMO. —SerialNumber54129^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 10:10, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on account of subject failing WP:NCORP. -The Gnome (talk) 07:23, 14 July 2018 (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.