Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Empire Carpet


 * 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   merge to Empire Today. Cirt (talk) 22:14, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Empire Carpet

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Possibly non-notable company. Article reads like an advertisement and was written by a single-purpose account. No independent third-party sources except for a list of business association awards, themselves of dubious notability. Psychonaut (talk) 12:01, 26 January 2010 (UTC) Ameritech now known as SBC Communications Marshall Field's now Macy's after acquisition Andersen Consulting changed their name to Accenture in 2001 Mars formerly known as M&M's In all these cases these companies have two separate Wikipedia pages (links to pages above), one each for their historic and new name. --Pete.kehoe (talk) 23:34, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Advertising Age magazine, a leading publication in the U.S. advertising industry, evidently named this company as "one of the top 200 brands in the United States". Advertising Age's text is not available for free online, but one of the references is Floor Covering Weekly reporting on Advertising Age's list. The "Jingle Fever" article from Replacement Contractor magazine is also from a reliable source. The Better Business Bureau references can be ignored. When I was searching for additional sources, I saw references in The New York Times from the 1920s to the 1950s to another company named Empire Carpet, presumably unrelated if this one was founded in 1959.  - Eastmain (talk • contribs)  13:38, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:28, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Merge to Empire Today, (which is the present name of the same company, as noted below by Zagalejo) The puffy promotional language in the article could use some editing, but that is not a valid reason for deletion when the company is clearly notable. They are known both as a national business and for their catchy jingle featuring their phone number. The notability of their jingle and the man who appears in their ads accrues to the sponsoring company. See Google News archive, with many news articles 1960-present. See the Washington Post, which says the Empire ad is one of the best known ad series in the USA, and that it runs in more than 24 cities . See, , , , , , , , , . Edison (talk) 15:32, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep They seem to be fairly notable in the secondary sources.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:54, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment It's a notable company, but we also have the article Empire Today. Perhaps a merge is in order? Zagalejo^^^ 08:31, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Empire Carpet has substantial history and is the popular name for the company. People search for "Empire Carpet" more than the company's new official name. Refer to Google Insights statistics for 2009 on recent search volume for Empire Carpet. The article has now been edited to remove promotional language with the objective to serve as a neutral information resource for Empire Carpet. --Pete.kehoe (talk) 19:54, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge to Empire Today. I'm satisfied with the references provided in this discussion, but in a general company shouldn't get two Wikipedia articles simply by virtue of having changed their name. —Psychonaut (talk) 20:39, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Empire Carpet merits a dedicated page owing to the name's popularity to this day and its long history since 1959. It should not be merged because it is an entity in its own right. There is Wikipedia precedent where major companies that have gone through name changes or mergers/acquisitions maintain two Wikipedia pages (e.g. an "historical" name page and a current company reference). Refer to:
 * Actually, some of the links you list are actually redirects, which would support a merge rather than a keep !vote. —Psychonaut (talk) 08:09, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge to Empire Today per the nom.  JBsupreme  ( talk ) 20:22, 2 February 2010 (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.