Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FASTSIGNS

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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 19:00, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FASTSIGNS

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

The WP:CSD#G11 speedy deletion of this article was overturned at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 April 13#FASTSIGNS (closed) and the article was referred to AfD. This is a procedural nomination made in my capacity as DRV closer, and I express no opinion about whether the article should be deleted or kept. Sandstein 16:29, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a well-referenced article about a large and well known franchise company. They have a store in my home town. Concern has been expressed about the capitalization, but that doesn't bother me because the company consistently capitalizes its own name. The article is written from the neutral point of view. Cullen328 (talk) 16:53, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 18:00, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 18:02, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Completely normal, non-advertising article on a company. Referenced and everything. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 18:38, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This company is a large franchise operation, with stores all over the United States and in five other countries as well, whose franchises, at least, are frequently mentioned in the local media in the areas where they operate. The article has already been correctly moved to Fastsigns with normal capitalization instead of FASTSIGNS. There are no significant problems with this article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:47, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - this may be a case of ignoring the rules, but I am not seeing significant secondary coverage of this company. Lots of google hits, and news hits too, but they are mostly of the "local store opens" or "business support charity type of thing". The article cites are blurbs about executive changes. On the face of it, the company fails WP:CORPDEPTH. That said, the company is indeed a large franchise and well known. I'd like to hear your thoughts on this. Seaphoto^Talk 20:22, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Company completely fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Crazymonkey1123 (Jacob) ^T/_S 20:25, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep company has received coverage from a variety of publications, seems to meet notability guidelines, and I suspect that most chains with 500+ stores will likewise be notable. Monty ₈₄₅ 22:25, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In my opinion, the references added by Metropolitan90 address any concerns about WP:CORPDEPTH. Well done. I've Wikified the article a bit. Cullen328 (talk) 06:53, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Most of the sources appear to be little more than reprints of Fastsigns press releases and are not useful for establishing notability. But the NY Times article and the Hellriegel book seem sufficient, especially as this is a very well-known franchise, making it likely that with more work, additional independent sources could be found. Msnicki (talk) 18:01, 28 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.