Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rugmark

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. postdlf (talk) 14:41, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rugmark[edit]

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

spammy article with history of blatant COI. Very questionable notability WuhWuzDat 17:49, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Despite WuhWuzDat's incorrect assertion that the notability of this certification program is "very questionable", it has been covered by reliable sources worldwide, in depth and in detail, for well over 15 years. I've added five such sources to the article. Paywalls can be frustrating, but thank goodness my regional newspaper of record, the San Francisco Chronicle, still makes lengthy articles available for free. Here's their article on Rugmark: [1]. I don't think that any reasonable editor can read this article, over 20 paragraphs long and entirely about Rugmark, plus the other references I've added, and end up by concluding that this topic is not notable. Cullen328 (talk) 04:55, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This nomination for deletion is seriously misjudged. JMcC (talk) 09:13, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:40, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - there is no doubt this articel has a spotted history; I've cleaned some of it up in the past. However, there is no doubt about notability. Reliable sources exist that cover this topic in detail. Thanks to Cullen328 for taking the time to improve the article with additional citations. -- Whpq (talk) 17:02, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just chiming in. I work for GoodWeave (formerly RugMark), and we rebranded the label in 2009 and the whole entity in 2010. More info is available on GoodWeave.org ^[1] See also GoodWeave International's page^[2]. Press articles that mention the change include the Huffington Post^[3] and the Guardian ^[4]. We'd love to change the logo on the RugMark page, if it's not deleted, but don't have enough changes on Wikipedia to be verified. Rviser (talk) 15:44, 29 March 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.

^ http://goodweave.org/about/rug_carpet_questions#section1.4
^ www.goodweave.net
^ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/julia-moulden/goodweave-carpet-child-labor_b_834441.html
^ http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/mar/27/being-green-buying-rugs

[1] ttp://goodweave.org/about/rug_carpet_questions#section1.4

[2] www.goodweave.net

[3] ttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/julia-moulden/goodweave-carpet-child-labor_b_834441.html

[4] ttp://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/mar/27/being-green-buying-rugs

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]