Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Easterns Automotive Group


 * 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. It looks like the consensus is that there are enough sources here to justify the article. Those with COI concerns should speak to the user in question or post at WP:COIN Hers fold  (t/a/c) 21:26, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Easterns Automotive Group

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

No nontrivial coverage found. High COI as well--author is. Blueboy96 01:16, 13 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete as being non-notable with no nontrivial hits. -- Pie is good  (Apple is the best)  01:45, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Sources found establish notability, so keep. Pie is good   (Apple is the best)  20:29, 13 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Blaxthos ( t / c ) 02:03, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. The company passes the general notability guideline. See the references in the article for nontrivial coverage, including:
 * F&I Management & Technology Magazine - F&I Magazine to Name Dealer of the Year - Jan 23, 2007
 * The conflict-of-interest issues aren't grounds for deleting the article and can be fixed once the article has been kept. I added information about a lawsuit against the company under "Litigation". --Eastmain (talk) 16:28, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I still have a serious problem with a company editing its own article and now creating multiple accounts to add to the article or influence an AFD outcome. Additionally, I don't know if I'd classify any of those articles as non-trivial, except perhaps the F&I one.  /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:29, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The conflict-of-interest issues aren't grounds for deleting the article and can be fixed once the article has been kept. I added information about a lawsuit against the company under "Litigation". --Eastmain (talk) 16:28, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I still have a serious problem with a company editing its own article and now creating multiple accounts to add to the article or influence an AFD outcome. Additionally, I don't know if I'd classify any of those articles as non-trivial, except perhaps the F&I one.  /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:29, 13 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions.   —Eastmain (talk) 16:31, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.   —Eastmain (talk) 16:31, 13 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Notability now established ukexpat (talk) 16:53, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Sufficient references to establish notability. The actual facts of the business were enough to imply it in any case. DGG (talk) 07:56, 17 September 2008 (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.