Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jimmyjane

:{{la|Jimmyjane}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jimmyjane Stats])

:({{Find sources|Jimmyjane}})

Non-notable company, has been tagged with WP:NOTE since '09 with no significant improvements since then. Primefac (talk) 15:37, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

• Delete. Notability not established. —Swpb^talk 15:54, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
• Delete as no evidence of notability. –Davey2010 • (talk) 17:11, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

:*Keep per significent improvements made. –Davey2010 • (talk) 16:31, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:15, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:16, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:16, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

• Speedy keep as already having 6 valid third party references showing notability. some are in the "external links", but thats just a formatting issue. They have gotten coverage, as a company and for their products. there is no indication that they are NOT notable. there is no set time frame for WP:NOTE that i am aware of. and, i just found 2 refs, one, a full article on the company at Atlantic Monthly magazine. which i found on page 3 of a google search for the company. Did anyone actually read the refs here or attempt a search?(user:mercurywoodrose)50.193.19.66 (talk) 19:49, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
• Comment i just removed the Note tag, but then realized that might not look good while at AFD. so, to be clear, nominator was correct, tagged as possibly not notable since 2009 with little or no improvement. if i had found this article just prior to this afd, i probably would have removed that Note tag anyway, after a brief search. if someone restores that tag for the sake of this afd, i will NOT revert.(merc)50.193.19.66 (talk) 20:52, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
• Comment you are allowed to improve an article when it is in AfD, including removing tags such as NOTE or UNREFERENCED if relevant. If the AfD results in the article significantly improving then people may change their votes. Primefac (talk) 21:17, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
• Keep The Atlantic and GQ articles alone are enough to establish notability. --MelanieN (talk) 03:28, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
• Keep MelanieN's argument is sufficient and accurate. --j⚛e decker^talk 01:45, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
• Keep, nice source coverage. — Cirt (talk) 02:59, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

---

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr^\ talk / 10:16, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

---

• Comment: After further analysis, was easily able to find more secondary sources and discussion in appropriate references at {{Find sources|Jimmyjane}} -- so I reiterate my sentiment that the page should be kept and improved upon with editors discussing the appropriate way to move forward on the article's talk page. — Cirt (talk) 03:53, 27 September 2014 (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.