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) Natg 19 (talk) 22:10, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wren Kitchens (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)

A promotion-led Wikipedia article that has links to editors who have been deleted from Wikipedia due to potential corporate tie-ins, such as https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Sala90&action=edit&redlink=1.

It is currently locked and has been for awhile due to the editing by what appear to be people connected to the company. With that in mind, I feel Wikipedia is better without such content than simply having it locked for the foreseeable future. No doubt the contributors with a conflict of interest will return, as they have done in the past when the page was unlocked. BritishGuy (talk) 23:21, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. BritishGuy (talk) 23:21, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. BritishGuy (talk) 23:21, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• SNOW Keep. The sourcing in the article already demonstrates notability. And while WP:TNT can be a reasonable delete rationale, this has been worked on by established editors quite a bit and doesn't seem overly promotional. Any existing problems in that regard are certainly fixable. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 02:13, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Easily notable enough for an article. No good reason for deletion given in nomination. All that is relevant here is notability, not poor editing. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:43, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep With 84 showrooms it is clearly notable. Dormskirk (talk) 00:14, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the nomination mentions COI editors were involved, I do not see that as a reason to determine that a company with 84 locations is not notable. Also whether or not the COI editors return, that too is not a reason to delete a notable company article. Wm335td (talk) 22:07, 3 February 2020 (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.