Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sleepy's

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The result was Withdrawn by nom/speedy keep I'm ignoring all rules on this non-admin closure even with the one delete !vote. It is shown through the article that this company is notable and will pass AFD, so we shouldn't have to wait another 6 days to get this off AFD. The article has some problems with the way it is written, but the deletion process isn't for cleanup. If anybody wishes to extend this for the remaining days, please contact me on my talk page before reverting my edit. Thanks, TheWeakWilled (T * G) 20:30, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sleepy's

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

Nonnotable mattress store. ~~Reads like an advertisement.~~ Sources are far from main-stream press. Creator and main contributor has a serious conflict of interest. Evb-wiki (talk) 13:09, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for rather obvious WP:COI violation. The article also has the heavy hand of WP:VSCA in its writing. Eddie.willers (talk) 13:52, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article has rather clear WP:COI issues, which should be addressed with the editor in question at WP:COIN. The company has been the largest mattress retailer in the United States for years and the article provides reliable and verifiable sources to establish that. The issues with the article are excellent justification for cleanup, not deletion. Alansohn (talk) 15:18, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The company is clearly notable, which is the issue. BTW WP seems to have a bias against businesses. If a member of a political party, for instance, was involved in its article the reaction would not be so strong. Borock (talk) 19:26, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. Sources prove this company is notable. There is even a source on there from a .gov site (and it isn't a trivial mention). TheWeakWilled (T * G) 21:41, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep without Question, but does need some work. Will put on my cleanup list.--Milowent (talk) 22:13, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Passes WP:CORP. Joe Chill (talk) 01:16, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - possibly one of the two or three best known bedding stores in the United States, with hundreds of locations. Bearian (talk) 01:22, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - In light of the improvements, and in recognition that WP:COI is not a sufficient reason to delete, Nom withdraws the nomination. --Evb-wiki (talk) 04:28, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good bold call, Evb-wiki! Let's hope the Sleepy's crew doesn't keep trying to undo the progress.--Milowent (talk) 06:04, 17 November 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.