Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sit 'n Sleep


 * 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 delete. Kurykh (talk) 00:34, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Sit 'n Sleep

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not entirely notable and the "advertising section" is weak. plus sources are from its own website Pyrusca (talk) 18:41, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as blatant advertising and this is existing from several years ago, the "advertising" section is especially unconvincing and of concern. SwisterTwister   talk  18:51, 8 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete. Although there is an LA Times article about its memorable advertising slogan, this still doesn't pass the notability threshold. The Blue Canoe  19:05, 8 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep While the current sources in the article are weak, and it is, admittedly, a bit annoying having to sift through the copious amounts of advertisements that come up in searches, there are, in fact, multiple reliable sources that talk about the company. For example, the OC Register had this article discussing the company's support of veterans.  And the Redlands Daily Facts and LA Sentinel have both had articles in the past talking about the company's charitable work, such as here and here.  The Los Angeles Times also had a fluff piece on the company as well, as seen here.  In addition to those, more in-depth sources, there are also shorter mentions in various minor sources, such as a brief talk about the effectiveness of its ad campaigns in this book, and some articles in minor publications like Furniture Today and some other small, trade publication.  There's also this piece that talks a bit about the company's history, though as it seems rather like a promotion, and I never heard of the publication, I don't know if that one counts as a reliable source.  Basically, in short, yeah, the article as it exists now is pretty bad and comes off as an advertisement, but there definitely are sources that talk about the company in less-than-advertisement ways.  64.183.45.226 (talk) 19:26, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:47, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:47, 8 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete Does not meet WP:CORP. No indication of in-depth significant coverage in RS.  Above articles mentioning hiring vets, donating mattresses are local stories and insufficient to establish notability. MB 05:00, 9 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete -- sources are insufficient; they are mostly about "local company does good" (i.e. routine). K.e.coffman (talk) 06:32, 11 November 2016 (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.