Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stan James


 * 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. T. Canens (talk) 01:17, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Stan James

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Consensus at Deletion review/Log/2010 June 8 was to list at AfD for potential notability issues. This is a procedural, neutral nomination. Regards,   A rbitrarily 0    ( talk ) 17:06, 15 June 2010 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:56, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. This is one of the UK's best-known bookmakers, as a cursory glance at the Google News search linked above will confirm. I'm flabbergasted that we didn't have an article on such a notable subject until a couple of weeks ago, and disappointed, but not surprised (but disappointed that I am not surprised), that the kneejerk reaction to the creation of this article was to nominate it for speedy deletion. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:44, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep as above. The article needs expanding and tidying up, but Stan James is a major company that has been sponsoring world championships such as this for years and has much coverage. Nuttah (talk) 17:09, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Keep. It is difficult to get at the coverage due to their sponsorship of high profile events clogging up the results. However, they are a well known company in the UK. If you dig deeper in the gnews results, you get stuff like this, which is decent coverage. Quantpole (talk) 15:58, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, article does not state notability.--Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 04:55, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Only the nom is a 'neutral' procedural nomination which logically entails that your 'per-nom' vote become a neutral vote. You may want to read the discussion before placing your vote. A brief look at the above tools shows that the topic is clearly notable. Christopher Connor (talk) 05:23, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Have now expanded the article. Christopher Connor (talk) 06:18, 24 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. Having said at DRV (without being able to see the article) that the speedy deletion should be overturned, I was sadly disappointed by the article when it was revealed. It scarcely made any attempt at claiming notability. It has now been considerably improved and makes credible notability claims, backed with references. Thincat (talk) 12:28, 28 June 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.