Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pop-a-Lock (2nd nomination)

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. The one keep argument asserts that sources exist, but doesn't actually say what they are. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:00, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pop-a-Lock

[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)

A franchise locksmith company that doesn't meet WP:CORPDEPTH. Working references are trivial; and references I find are either trivial or press releases. A variety of issues with content in all revisions (dating to 2005). power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:41, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 18:16, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 18:16, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 18:16, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 17:38, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 08:29, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article isn't great, but a quick google finds quite a few news articles where they get significant mention. Apparently they even have a scam named after them.XeroxKleenex (talk) 17:20, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as corporate spam on a nn company. Sourcing is in passing, routine notices, and / or WP:SPIP. G11 / TNT applies. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:21, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and thus WP:CORP. In the article, sources are passing mentions or redirected dead links, while on my WP:BEFORE search, only this came up as the possible source https://www.bizjournals.com/pacific/news/2017/06/23/unlocking-the-key-to-success.html but even that is more focused on Catherine Walker, which besides the lack of WP:SIGCOV it also seems to be WP:SPIP. Not notable overall. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 12:51, 16 November 2018 (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.