Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bridgetree


 * 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   no consensus. (WP:NPASR). (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica1000 06:34, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Bridgetree

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

None notable company page Almogo (talk) 03:21, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  Rcsprinter123     (converse)  @ 09:59, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions.  Rcsprinter123     (state the obvious)  @ 10:00, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 18 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. There are 6 Charlotte Business Journal articles significantly about this firm, due to its long litigation process from 2007 to recently, involving a $4.2million judgement in its favor.  Articles listed at "profile" at http://www.bizjournals.com/profiles/company/us/nc/charlotte/bridgetree/1544736.  I think just one of these is cited in the article, so far. -- do  ncr  am  12:19, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * According to WP:AUD local only coverage is not sufficient for notability and this trial seems to be their only claim to fame. None of their products or actions are notable. Almogo (talk) 13:54, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I added more to the article, about the firm's move of main operations from Davidson NC to a historic building in Mooresville, North Carolina, with two sources. The Charlotte Business Journal is a regional publication, not local.  It is covering Mooresville, 32 miles away in a different county from Charlotte, North Carolina, a major city, the largest in North Carolina. -- do  ncr  am  18:28, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 11:52, 24 February 2014 (UTC)




 * Merge article on the Natinoal Register listed historic building being used noted here. I'm not seeing substantial coverage for company itself. Candleabracadabra (talk) 01:26, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 14:13, 7 March 2014 (UTC)


 * 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.