Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bromberg's

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. (non-admin closure) Cavarrone 08:15, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bromberg's

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

User:TonyBallioni prodded it with the following rationale: "Unsourced article about a company that appears to fail WP:ORG and WP:GNG" It was deprodded by it's WP:SPA creator, User:Anne Rast yoder, who added some general sources ([1]). They seem difficult to verify, and seem like mostly local news coverage. As such, I concur with prod nominator: the coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement.. As I discussed in my Signpost Op-Ed, this is a good example of Yellow-Pages like company spam. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:55, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and repair. Sources say this 180-year-old jewelry company is the oldest business in Alabama, and one of the oldest retailers in the United States. In addition to plenty of coverage in Alabama media, non-local coverage includes the Florida Times-Union[2], the Los Angeles Times [3], the jewelry industry magazine JCK [4], and an AP article that was picked up by outlets like Fox News, [5] U.S. News & World Report [6], the Irish Independent [7], etc. I'm inclined to think this is a legitimately notable company, and that the article and its sourcing should be cleaned up rather than deleted. --Arxiloxos (talk) 18:12, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:02, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:02, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the reason I didn't nominate for AfD after the original prod was that the references provided and further search suggested to me that it was notable. I'm inclined to agree with Arxiloxos here. It's in huge need for clean up, but I think it's notable. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:31, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets WP:CORPDEPTH per a review of available sources. In addition to the sources posted above, see the article for more. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:16, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.