Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Turtle Wax


 * 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. Withdrawn  DGG ( talk ) 04:01, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Turtle Wax

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This is in my opinion a famous product, but I do not see 3rd party sources for notability. The bloomberg item is just a routine company profile. .  DGG ( talk ) 00:08, 21 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:NEXIST. It's trivially simple to see thousands of references to this product all over the place. Given that the nom's deletion reason is simply the current state of referencing, and even acknowledges that this is a notable product, I'd suggest Speedy Keep. Fieari (talk) 00:53, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:17, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:17, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:17, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

 References
 * Keep – The topic passes WP:CORPDEPTH. Also keep per WP:NEXIST, because notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article. Source examples include, but are not limited to those listed below. North America1000 01:19, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The Spokesman Review
 * Boca Raton News
 * Fortune
 * Star News
 * Bangor News
 * International Directory of Company Histories. pp. 468–470.
 * A Passion for Winning. pp. 43-44.
 * The Telegraph
 * Crain's Chicago Business
 * The Wall Street Journal
 * Keep. The sources cited by Northamerica substantiate this topic's notability. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 07:41, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - now appears to be notable per WP:GNG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VMS Mosaic (talk • contribs) 11:50, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep, although it now needs a certain amount of de-fluffing... Pinkbeast (talk) 14:57, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep - Why wasn't WP:BEFORE performed ? .... Anyway meets GNG. – Davey 2010 Talk 19:25, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. I see plenty of third party coverage that easily establishes notability. --Michig (talk) 06:00, 22 June 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.