Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tamko
There is always the old |other stuff argument when that is not only generally a bad argument but not supported by any policies or guidelines. The company has been around a long time and even though likely rated outside the top ten (was #11) I can see some notability although a search seems to be more about the class action lawsuit. That is not abnormal as GAF, Owen Corning, Atlas, CertainTeed, IKO, and Globe Building Materials (probably others) along with Tamko, had these suits over roof failures (and fading), deceptive warranties, substandard roofing shingle manufacturing, false advertising, etc..., for fiberglass, organic, and asphalt shingles. My issue is that because a company has good advertising, as shown by mostly |primary sources, does not equate to notability regardless of how much we like it. Adding more primary sources to support notability does not make the case
— User:Otr500, 14:20, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
Stance: keep
Cited policy: WP:OTHER||WP:PRIMARY (Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions)