Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oyster Fly Rods


 * 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. Beeblebrox (talk) 08:14, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Oyster Fly Rods

 * – ( View AfD View log )


 * Delete. Non-notable company. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 05:01, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep: Per, , , , , and . The second source is even CNN. Did you search for sources? SL93 (talk) 16:30, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep There appear to be sufficient reliable sources about this company to establish notability. Nwlaw63 (talk) 16:52, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. So what are we building here? An encyclopaedia or a business directory!!! -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 18:43, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * So your position is that the business should not be on Wikipedia even with significant coverage? SL93 (talk) 19:32, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * No. I have no problem with articles about businesses being on WP, it is just that I feel that they must have very significant coverage before being included. I know that "very significant" is a subjective statement that is difficult to work with in AfDs but we should set the bar higher than WP:GNG. Articles about small businesses are essentially SPAM since it is not likely that the equivalent competing businesses will all get WP article at any time in the near future. This gives them an unfair advantage. WP should be a level playing field for articles about businesses. Non-profit organisations are a different case. See also WP:CORP. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 21:47, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * My vote is based on both GNG and CORP. SL93 (talk) 21:59, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * And blindly following those guidelines introduces yet another systemic bias into WP. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 22:24, 10 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Per the sourcing found by SL93. The subject has significant coverage in reliable sources and meets the notablity guidelines for organizations. Alpha_Quadrant    (talk)  23:50, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 11 December 2011 (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.