Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mel Bernie Company
- 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The result was Withdrawn by nominator. I'm convinced now that the article probably more or less meets our criteria for notability, and there're no dissenting views. Herostratus (talk) 22:00, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
- Mel Bernie Company (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unnotable entity, does not pass WP:CORP. There's no significant coverage, just a few press-release type notices.
The environment stuff is not that notable. Not excusing them, but jewelry making uses a lot of toxic chemicals and its hard to be perfect. OK they were pretty bad, but not to the level of notability IMO since there're no newspaper stories. The links have gone dead anyway, but I think most of the info is re-obtainable. But note that it's government documents (primary sources) not news stories. Ditto the info on their jewelry lines. A couple press-release type notices in trade mags. Probably only WWD is notable and that's still a trade mag. Not one single story in a newspaper or general-purpose magazine that I found, never mind an in-depth profile.
FWIW they just sent someone over to gussy up the article, and the person is putting in promotional material even after being advised; they're active now so beware the current version might not be the correct one, check the history if it looks wrong. Not worth fighting over since they're unnotable IMO, and what with the environmental stuff we're probably doing them a favor not to have the article anyway, so delete. Herostratus (talk) 20:59, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
- Keep - Passes WP:CORPDEPTH. Source examples include:
- Hmmmmm, OK, thanks for finding the LA TImes article which I missed. That is an in-depth article in a major general-audience publication. The last three are really just product announcements and don't really qualify under WP:CORPDEPTH IMO (it's arguable), and the Info World piece, while longer, is just a specialty article in specialty mag about them upgrading their computer systems; it's not something we can really use in the article. And WP:CORPDEPTH talks about "multiple" sources and uses the plural, and the LA Times story is just one source. Still, it is definitely now "possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about [the] organization", so there's that. It certainly puts them on the bubble at worst and is a pretty good argument for keeping the article. Herostratus (talk) 16:14, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:45, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:46, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:46, 5 February 2014 (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.