Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jacobson's

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The result was speedy keep as withdrawn by nominator and no delete votes --Random832 (contribs) 13:36, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jacobson's

Unsourced article about unnotable company. Tagged for more references since August 2006, the only citations are from the company website and a possibly-unreliable company history.

I can't trust both of them and what is left to improve it are 642 hits, not enough to establish the reputation of this company. Alexius08 (talk) 06:45, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Here are a few potentially useful sources: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], etc. You have to play around with your search terms and use Google News archive to find the good stuff. And what is that you're using, Latin google? Just curious.... :) Zagalejo^^^ 07:54, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable and historic. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:35, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Zagalejo's sources, asserts notability as a sizeable regional chain with significant history. The Funding Universe source appears reliable as well. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 21:31, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 642 hits isn't enough for you? :-P Seriously, I just added a few sources to the article and expanded it, and am still left wondering why every single retail article on Wikipedia sucks so badly. Clearly nobody else cares about one of my areas of expertise. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 22:14, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in this case the main author had to leave the project rather suddenly shortly after starting the article… – iride scent 22:25, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hah. Sweet. It was started by a MyWikiBiz sock. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 22:28, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, there are enough sources to prove notability. Tavix | Talk 02:09, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep—I commend TenPoundHammer for the excellent work he did bringing this article up to a reasonable standard that can obviously be kept. {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 03:38, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now speedy keep, seeing the difference between the pre-AfD version and the revision by TenPoundHammer. Much improvement. Alexius08 (talk) 07:27, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. There's off-site evidence that the nominator wants a "war against MyWikiBiz", and wants fellow Wikipedians to join him. Because of the editor's phrasing, I worry that the nomination may not have been made in good faith, or that the deletion of this article, now well-sourced, would cause further disruption to the encyclopedia. Firsfron of Ronchester 03:58, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The "642 Google hits" argument is irrelevant in any case, as "Jacobson's" is a trading name; entering "Jacobson Stores" as the search term brings up far more. – iride scent 10:51, 19 May 2009 (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.