Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/G&K Services


 * 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:42, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

G&K Services

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Non-notable local company; minimal coverage in local paper's business section does not satisfy WP:CORP. Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  13:32, 11 October 2010 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete: not enough coverage to confirm notability.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:40, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I haven't checked this yet in detail but it does not seem to be a mere local company. They're hundred years old with several thousands of employees and seem to be traded at NASDAQ.--Tikiwont (talk) 13:55, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.
 * Delete, weakly. This business apparently makes workplace uniforms.  There is a fair amount of business page coverage found by Google News.  But going through the first several pages of it, all I saw were routine announcements of personnel changes or acquisitions, environmental and labor litigation, or regurgitated press releases.  Nothing I found suggested that this business has the sort of historical, cultural, or technical significance needed to sustain an encyclopedia article.  - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:49, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. G&K is not a local company, it is large publicly traded company which operates a national network of industrial laundries as well as manufacturing uniforms.  Almost 1,000 hits at Google News archives; the first one is a 1988 profile in USA Today. --Arxiloxos (talk) 05:36, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Keep long established publicly traded companies are notable.    DGG ( talk ) 00:05, 24 October 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.