Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tire Kingdom (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Kurykh (talk) 08:48, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Tire Kingdom
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

A little bit of controversy brewing here. =) I have found this article popping up at least twice today on Special:New Pages. I speedy deleted the first incarnation, and the most recent version was redirected to the article for TBC Corporation - which was soon reverted by the author.  The issues I have here are that the article does not show notability for this tire dealer based in Florida - it would seem that a better home for it may be in the article for TBC, but I'm not so sure about that. -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 22:23, 15 December 2011 (UTC)  Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 22:23, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Redirect to TBC article, as I previously did. Karl 334   ☞ TALK to ME ☜  22:35, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Delete this and TBC Corporation. The TBC article lacks valid references.  red dog six  (talk) 22:50, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, you can either fix it or put it up in its own AFD. You got the power, man.  I'd rather leave it to a separate discussion, myself. -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 06:02, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Side Comment I'm no great fan of big corporations, but the good secondary sources about TBC Corporation were already available in the articles on the subsidiaries. I don't think there's any doubt that TBC was notable. Sionk (talk) 00:33, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Please help me establish this page at least as a stub status. Our other brands all have wiki pages that our TBC wiki page links to. The first version was deleted because I used the content from our website to create it. I then re-posted it with original content. The business has been in business for over 35 years and TK itself operates in 8 states with more than 200 locations. Below is a list of further information on the company from other sites/references: http://www.comdata.com/assets/pdf/case_studies/CaseStudy_TireKing.pdf http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/private/snapshot.asp?privcapId=35596 http://www.moderntiredealer.com/Article/Story/2011/07/Tire-Kingdom-vs-Discount-Tire.aspx http://www.bbb.org/south-east-florida/business-reviews/automobile-repair-services/tire-kingdom-in-juno-beach-fl-10209 Please contact me for more information or details. Thanks in advance for your assistance. --Kavaliauskas (talk) 01:11, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * There are two issues I will have with this, Kavaliauskas. One, there's now very clear conflict of interest here (please read that - in a nutshell, you should not be working on articles you have a direct interest in).  Two, of the four links you provide only one could conceivably count as a reliable source.  In addition, we really can't rely on the fact that there are other articles about your related companies - this, alone does not set a precedent.  I encourage you to read those guidelines.  -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 05:51, 16 December 2011 (UTC)


 * delete Your basic WP business advertorial. Such articles on commercial organisations can exist, but they must have good external sources to show notability. Otherwise they're just, as here, self-sourced and spammy. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:14, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Can someone please help provide some more guidance on what would make an organization notable? This is our second largest company that TBC has and all the other companies have pages here. There are many external resources about the company. I'm having a hard time understanding the issue. Many thanks... --Kavaliauskas (talk) 15:44, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I have already provided you links to the resources that you need. Please see above.  Moreover, as this is a directassociation with the company you have, there is conflict of interest.  I cannot support this. -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 06:26, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * For the information of the article's author, the Wikipedia notability guidelines for companies and organizations can be found at Notability (organizations and companies). Generally Wikipedia only allows encyclopedic articles about things that have had significant coverage in reliable, secondary sources that are completely independent of the subject. Sionk (talk) 23:45, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep: The only valid reason to delete would be that the current content is not worthwhile keeping. Some checking tells me that this large chain, Tire Kingdom, does easily meet notability standards. (featuring sweet picture of founder), and that's not even including all the investigations, etc., about the company over the years.--Milowent • hasspoken  05:12, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Milowent • hasspoken 13:41, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep They had more than 67 locations at one point. Click the Google news archive search at the top of the AFD and the first thing that pops up is the South Florida Sun - Sentinel saying in Aug 16, 2000 that it was one of the two largest tire dealers in Florida.  The USA Today article says Tire Kingdom is the eighth largest U.S. tire seller.  If any previous article was deleted, its because people didn't bother checking for news coverage to prove this was a notable company.  Shame on them.   D r e a m Focus  16:45, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep – Per the availability of reliable sources that significantly address this topic, some of which are posted above. Topic passes WP:GNG. Northamerica1000 (talk) 21:27, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep this is very clearly notable, compare with Big O Tires, or Kragen.LuciferWildCat (talk) 21:46, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:CORP. Any assertion this is a local company with local coverage is refuted by the paragraph in the WSJ article and the mention in USA Today. Page rescue by User:Milowent puts this past the bar with room to spare (no pun intended). That User:Kavaliauskas has an interest would be a COI problem if the user didn't self-identify, but he or she did. Since the user's efforts have been to provide RS, I have no problem with the effort. BusterD (talk) 23:18, 24 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.