Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sterling Jewelers


 * 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:23, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Sterling Jewelers

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

A lovingly crafted advertisement with paper-thin sourcing, deleted as spam but undeleted as it had been around too long. Guy (Help!) 16:32, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - I've added a couple of sources from the Wall St. Journal & The New York Post but they only appear to be notable for the lawsuit they were involved in. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 18:20, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak keep: While I partially agree with the nom in that the article is slightly spammish in its current form, I think with some work, it could pass. I'm going to give it a shot later tomorrow. ~dee  ( talk? ) 19:44, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Plenty of hits for the individual brand names, particularly Kay Jewelers. Stub if necessary. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 00:36, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it would be better to create articles on the brand names and then either stubbify (although I don't think that's justified at the moment) or delete the article on the parent company? PanydThe muffin is not subtle 12:43, 27 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:24, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Clicking on the Google Books search link at the top of the article finds loads of sources to demonstrate notability. Is it really too much to ask that deletion nominators, especially administrators, should follow deletion policy by only nominating "articles for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed" for reasons of sourcing rather than making wild guesses as to whether sources exist. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:25, 28 September 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.