Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Featherlite Trailers

Featherlite Trailers

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

Article provides no evidence of the company being notable per WP:CORP ╟─Treasury Tag►Captain-Regent─╢ 18:34, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Very notable company with ample coverage in a plethora of reliable sources. Nominator is welcome to add additional content citations if he's not satisfied with what is already being used. Doing so would be far more worthwhile than spending time arguing over whether the subject should be deleted entirely (it shouldn't). Freakshownerd (talk) 18:46, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator is welcome to add additional content citations. Additional content citations? It is your job, as the article creator, to list sufficient independent reliable sources. Currently, I don't believe that you have. Most of what is [very poorly] listed is simply the company's own website (not independent), sources from organisations who have received sponsorship money from this company (WP:SIGCOV explicitly excludes "advertising" as an independent source, which is what sponsorship pages basically are), or otherwise self-published.╟─Treasury Tag►stannary parliament─╢ 18:49, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication that this meets WP:CORP. Perhaps Freakshownerd should read WP:AFD to learn how to make AfD arguments. ALXVA (talk) 19:54, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep User:Freakshownerd is new here. Though I had never heard of Featherlite, Inc. it's on the NASDAQ exchange (might not be now), and gets significant coverage in the business world [1]. According to this [[2] it had sales in 1998 of $190 million dollars. Seems to meet WP:GNG for me and WP:CORP as well. I do think that it needs to be rewritten in a less promotional fashion, but still, one can't judge notability simply on how the article looks so far. Mandsford 21:16, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - on NASDAQ, plenty of significant coverage, meets WP:CORP, WP:GNG. Due to the poor state of the article, I'll flag it for rescue. Claritas § 21:07, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]