Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/You Walk Away


 * 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. Looks like it's not walking away Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:29, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

You Walk Away

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Claims to have been subject of many reliable sources. However, the sources in the article are either primary or tangential mentions in the context of something else — they just name drop it in the article and talk about something else entirely. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 18:55, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep I disagree. (Full disclosure: I removed TenPoundHammer's prod from the article.) There are at two references, already cited in the article, in which major national media outlets devote several paragraphs to this company specifically - the New York Times and Time Magazine. There are also citations from lesser outlets such as the St. Louis Business Journal. Google News Archive finds more: ABC News, San Diego Union Tribune, etc. --MelanieN (talk) 22:14, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The NYT, St. Louis Business Journal and San Diego articles only mention You Walk Away for one whole sentence before talking about something else. Tell me how that's non-trivial coverage. Oh wait, IT ISN'T. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 23:40, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll leave it to the others here to look at the references - particularly the ones from the New York Times and Time - and decide which of us is describing them correctly. --MelanieN (talk) 01:21, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. MelanieN (talk) 22:16, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. MelanieN (talk) 22:19, 3 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep and clean up. I've taqged the article as it feels generally promotional and seems to have some violations of WP:PEACOCK therein, but the references check. -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 02:16, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. The sources MelanieN name comprise multiple instances of direct coverage, and the subject to very strongly associated with the thrust of the story - they are not incidental mentions.  This is sufficient. While the several mentions look promotional, I don't think it represents paid advertisments.  The multiple coverage reflects actual interest in the background subject, and independent journalists here seem to want to promote this company, more to be useful journalists providing a useful service to their readers than from a financial connection to a company.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:51, 9 May 2012 (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.