Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/My Local Bobby

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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:57, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My Local Bobby

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

This article is about a private company which honestly lacks major notability with the exception of a few low-quality references Theprussian (talk) 18:14, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:20, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:20, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are seven references from respectable independent sources. Plenty more from tabloids too. If you think anything in the article is inaccurate please discuss on the talk page.Rathfelder (talk) 18:33, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, this is a funny nomination (not necessarily ha-ha funny:)), "This article is about a private company" - not a reason for deletion, "which honestly lacks major notability" - subjects only need to be notable, they do not need to have "major notability" to be deemed articleworthy, as for "low-quality references", that is a subjective term, and i would like to know what the nominator means by this (ie. not indepth? too local? over only a short period of time? etc.). Coolabahapple (talk) 04:36, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

as has coverage in multiple reliable sources such as The Guardian, Evening Standard, The Times- all regarded as high quality British newspapers with long histories, no valid reason for deletion imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:19, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:44, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:RS WP:ATD Wm335td (talk) 20:48, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are at least two references (e.g. The Guardian and The Times) that meet the criteria for establishing notability, topic meets GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:39, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Has coverrage in multiple sources Alex-h (talk) 09:06, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject is notable and it passes media/source coverage criteria. The article just needs more content and expansion. --Wario-Man (talk) 08:37, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - While the article needs to be fleshed out, it clearly meets the notability guidelines. Subpar performance by nominator. 208.185.237.210 (talk) 14:13, 16 October 2019 (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.