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. T. Canens (talk) 15:20, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pimlico Plumbers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Contested PROD : This is an encyclopaedia and not the White Pages, purely here to promote this non-notable company. Also seen by the company as a PR tool. Mtking (talk) 22:31, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete It looks likes an advertisement. And Adoil Descended (talk) 22:42, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is not a notable company, and I agree it looks like an advertisement. The profit they are boasting about was enough to buy a nice house. Imperi (talk) 23:45, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. Some of the sources already in the article are pretty good, such as this one from the Daily Mail. If we could find an independent source verifying that they are indeed the largest independent plumbing firm in Britain, notability would be much clearer. Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:15, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • However, we do need major clean-up here. Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:17, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• I find two sources saying it's the largest independent pluming company in London, but nothing about it being the largest in Britain. I changed the article and added one of the citations (the other was written by Charlie Mullins). --some jerk on the Internet (talk) 16:43, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Whether it's in Britain or in London, the meaning of the word "independent" in this context needs to be established before being the largest such company can be accepted as a claim of notability. I'm sure that its meaning could be interpreted in many different ways making many different companies claimants of that title. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:48, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:11, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep It may be a mess, but some sources prove notability. AntiCommons (talk) 00:12, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep Doesn't independent mean it's run by just one person and not by either a board room of idiots or by a larger corporation? I can confirm that the company is owned by just Charlie Mullins and theres is no board room staff at the company. Just to confirm the companies 'notability'

Professional sources http://www.bbc.co.uk/search/?q=pimlico%20plumbers http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/search.html?searchPhrase=pimlico+plumbers http://www.independent.co.uk/search/index.jsp?eceExpr=pimlico+plumbers http://www.smarta.com/search?text=pimlico%20plumbers From their own website: http://about-us.pimlicoplumbers.com/media/pimlico-in-the-press <--hundreds of press links both online and newspaper clippings http://about-us.pimlicoplumbers.com/media/pimlico-on-the-radio <--mentions, reports, interviews on BIG UK radio stations http://about-us.pimlicoplumbers.com/media/pimlico-on-tv <-- News articles, from the BBC, ITV, and Sky news They must be notable to get that much media coverage right? The article does need more information about the company though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.137.192.173 (talk) 10:56, 15 July 2011 (UTC) — 81.137.192.173 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Keep Regardless of whether it is or is not the largest (or not) independent (or not) plumbing company in London (or England), the firm passes WP:GNG and is notable. The reference list cites plenty of press from major British publications including the Times, the Telegraph, the Guardian and the Daily Mail. And they are articles ABOUT the company and its doings, not passing mentions in an article about something else. --MelanieN (talk) 20:34, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Refs look fine to me. Szzuk (talk) 19:21, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Passes WP:ORGIN guidelines and should be categorised to stub class.Sehmeet singh (talk) 13:52, 19 July 2011 (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.