Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Build-A-Bear Workshop

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 Speedy keep per WP:SNOW. Non-admin closure.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 17:32, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Build-A-Bear Workshop

For the several years of its existence, the article has had nothing but self-referential primary sources and press releases. A cursory search of Google News also gives up nothing but PR Wire and BusinessWire press releases. The company may be public, but it's clearly not covered significantly in third party sources. Thus, it fails WP:CORP. Steven Walling (talk) 01:54, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep [1], and [2]. Well known company with an international presence. -Senseless!... says you, says me 01:59, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable publicly traded company. Founder is also quite well known and I'm certain there is substantial coverage available if someone wants to add cites... ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:08, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Let's see: Publicly traded company,[3] 400+ stores in a dozen countries,[4][5] a handful of subsidiaries and other stores that aren't build-a-bear,[6] litigation and controversy over patents,[7][8] 300-450+ million USD in yearly revenue over several years,[9][10] its own award winning[11] Nintendo DS game,[12] a logistics company makes a case study on build-a-bear as a distribution solution.[13] Yes, I think the company is notable, and the article should be expanded and references improved, not deleted. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 05:44, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I sincerely hope you'll add all you found to the article then. If no one steps up to fix it, keeping an article built out of press releases is untenable. Steven Walling (talk) 06:41, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Its better to try to fix an article's issues before taking it to AfD, in this case adding sources that satisfy WP:V. -Senseless!... says you, says me 16:05, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A Google News archive search reveals all kinds of valid sources from newspapers and magazines. [14] This is fine. This looks good. So does this. And so on. Zagalejo^^^ 05:49, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - So because it uses first party sources and press releases, it's not notable (despite there being stores in at least a dozen countries and makes at least US$300 million)? That demands rewriting, not deletion. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 09:07, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Couldn't believe my eyes when I saw this in AfD, I wish people would search properly for references instead of bringing articles to AfD and having other people do it. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 10:01, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, subject is certainly notable, as the various links given above show. And trout the nominator for not following WP:BEFORE. Umbralcorax (talk) 15:10, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Hugely notable, a household word for anybody with kids, passes WP:CORP easily. Notable enough to be the primary subject of a published book ("The bear necessities of business", ISBN 0471772755). Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:09, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I propose we snowball close this one. -Senseless!... says you, says me 16:36, 8 April 2009 (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.