Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rupert and Buckley

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. (non-admin closure) Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 13:14, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rupert and Buckley

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

Fails WP:CORP no significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources, a few mentions in local press and blogs only. Theroadislong (talk) 21:22, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

article on company, article on founder and company, article on one of founders and the company, introduction of company and interview with founder Lots of coverage. Keep Candleabracadabra (talk) 23:28, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As I said "local" coverage, hardly mainstream press.Theroadislong (talk) 07:33, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, you said "a few mentions in local press and blogs only." In fact, there are many articles entirely about the company in several media sources. Article is well referenced and the subject is clearly notable. Candleabracadabra (talk) 10:58, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please could you list them or add them? Theroadislong (talk) 11:49, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I listed several and there are many already in the article. Candleabracadabra (talk) 12:41, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Ludlow advertiser, Bath Chronicle and Canterbury Times are local newspapers are you saying they count as reliable sources?Theroadislong (talk) 14:26, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CORP states "attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, national, or international source is necessary." Theroadislong (talk) 15:25, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's discussion about this "local/regional" divide here. If all the coverage was a single small paper then deletion would definitely seem sensible, but I'm inclined to say that the coverage from quite a few (admittedly small) outfits suggests the company is just about notable for Wikipedia. (NB: I haven't extensively reviewed the criteria of notability.) -- Fluteflute ^Talk ^{Contributions} 16:05, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 7 May 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, Mz7 (talk) 03:34, 13 May 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, czar ♔ 05:27, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. meets WP:GNG. Peter James (talk) 17:19, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm inclined to agree with Peter James. I believe it meets WP:GNG... just barely. Nickmalik (talk) 20:27, 20 May 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.