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. henrik•talk 08:27, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tumbleweed Tiny House Company (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Delete. SPAMish article about a non-notable company. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:57, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: while the depth of coverage within the available references for this company is rather shallow, I don't believe them to be trivial, and there are quite a few of them, like this one, this one, this one, and this one. StandardSwan (talk) 03:44, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: It's a tiny company, but it's been covered in a nontrivial fashion by a diverse variety of credible reliable sources. --Orlady (talk) 13:37, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above. -- Joaquin008 ^(talk) 09:46, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• So because a company has some refs that can be used they can then use WP to commercial advantage because none of the competitors articles exist, and may not do so for a looong time. The advertising industry must think it great. All they have to do is have a WP article written to get free advertising for their client! -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 01:54, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: That argument sounds remarkably like one of the "arguments to avoid" outlined at Wikipedia:Other stuff exists and WP:OTHERSTUFF. --Orlady (talk) 02:04, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it probably is. There needs to be a discussion on the inclusion of article about businesses to avoid WP becoming a business directory. As things currently stand there is nothing stopping potentially 100s of 1000s of article being added to WP. Even though WP is not paper we should avoid this scenario. WP:NOT etc is not stopping the steady stream of SPAM by stealth. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 02:19, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:30, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well said, Alan. StandardSwan (talk) 16:20, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So can I interest you in a delete rather than a keep? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 19:58, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

...maybe next time (sincerely). While I'm in overall agreement with your argument, I can't justify voting to delete this article -- they are by all means within WP's criteria for notability. Although it could use some copy editing to bring it up to MoS standards. StandardSwan (talk) 21:13, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AfDs are used to shape what WP is as a whole so if we continue allowing articles in if they meet our current notability guidelines we will end up with a business directory. It is nest to impossible to create notability guidelines and WP:GNG is used to trump all other notability guidelines. And so the problem remains... -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:37, 19 March 2012 (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.