Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trick Son & Lloyd

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 delete. Sr13 03:41, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Trick Son & Lloyd

Trick Son & Lloyd (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Article about a local (and defunct) real-estate and travel agency, farced out with historical information that has no specific relevance to this firm. Fails WP:N, in my opinion. Deor 04:07, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

• Interesting article, but this business doesn't seem to meet our notability guidelines. If it's been written about in local histories or business histories or something, then I might be convinced that it's notable, but based on what I see right now, delete. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:23, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. The creator of the article seems to have been personally involved in the company. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:24, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

The edit is incomplete so deletion will prevent additional information for it to fulfill Wikipedia guidelines.

The business was connected with and instrumental with the content and is therefore valid.

As the person who holds the historical information for this company and the history of much more in that locality it is natural that I may be associated with it.

The business is recorded in local archives.

This tag would seem to be personal - See talk for more.

I am more than happy to step down as a contributing editor if this is how Wikipedia works. Martynwg 05:06, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. Regarding the malformed "talk" link in Martynwg's comment above, the supposed evidence for the personal nature of my nom can be found at User talk:Martynwg, though you'll have to work through the edit history, since Martynwg has deleted every one of my messages immediately after reading it. Deor 05:24, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Fails WP:CORP. Martynwg, in order for the article to stay, you'll need to provide references from reliable sources to prove that the firm is notable, according to the guidelines. Tevildo 06:13, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete This seems to be an essay of sorts that is drawing on personal (and hence likely unverifiable) information. Regardless, this defunct company clearly fails WP:CORP and doesn't merit its own article. Eusebeus 08:15, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. From a local social history standpoint I can see this business illustrating a number of things about the place, but it isn't an important or notable business in any way. Martynwg, simply understand that Wikipedia is not a soapbox or webspace provider for you to write whatever you personally deem worthwhile. Articles that are in Wikipedia must have some encyclopedic importance. --Dhartung | Talk 09:30, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as unsourced, probably unverifiable. Everything Google found were Wikipedia mirrors. --Huon 09:51, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete unless some reliable sources show up. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:29, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep if the information can be sourced. I am not certain the modern part is notable but the historical part certainly is. The information must come from somewhere--probably a company history., DGG 07:04, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 14:00, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

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.