Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Power Home Remodeling Group
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 Keep Yasht101 02:48, 4 May 2012 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]
- Power Home Remodeling Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Delete. A company of insufficient notability. That it is referenced is in itself insufficient grounds for retaining the article. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:35, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The company is notable. I have provided reliable references to prove the fact that the company is notable. Anyone can check the references that they support the facts to prove the notability of the company. What type of references are then required to prove the notability of the company? As per WP:GNG the sources are published by reliable third parties making the company notable and according to WP:NRVE I have used reputable media sources, and other reliable sources to prove the facts.--Inlandmamba (talk to me) 20:46, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:GNG allows all manner of articles about companies to be created. The guideline at WP:COMPANY is not a lot of help so we are in desperate need of notability guideline for commercial organisations to help us with these Afds. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:50, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:GNG does allow the company only if it satisfies the criteria mentioned in it. As per WP:COMPANY, Wikipedia editors should not create articles on commercial organizations for the purpose of overtly or covertly advertising a company. If this could be considered as an advertising(which actually it is not), my writing tone would have been quite different. The company is notable as there are also many more references to prove the facts but I didn't add them because I didn't want to make Wikipedia a collection of links. You can even see the google hits for the notabilty. --Inlandmamba (talk to me) 21:09, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I did not say that it is advertising, although it is because there are no equivalent articles for any of their competetors and by virtue of actually having a WP article (and therefore gaining a higher profile because of how search engines rank WP articles}. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:21, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Search engines do not rank (links in) WP articles btw... see WP:NOFOLLOW. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:17, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The article satisfies the notability criteria. On Wikipedia, notability is not established by looking if there are articles of competitor companies on Wikipedia or not. If it satisfies WP:GNG, notabilty is established. Company also satisfies WP:CORP,WP:ORGSIG and WP:CORPDEPTH and is by no means an advertising.--Inlandmamba (talk to me) 13:15, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The references also satisfy WP:GOODREFS.--Inlandmamba (talk to me) 14:34, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The article satisfies the notability criteria. On Wikipedia, notability is not established by looking if there are articles of competitor companies on Wikipedia or not. If it satisfies WP:GNG, notabilty is established. Company also satisfies WP:CORP,WP:ORGSIG and WP:CORPDEPTH and is by no means an advertising.--Inlandmamba (talk to me) 13:15, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Search engines do not rank (links in) WP articles btw... see WP:NOFOLLOW. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:17, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I did not say that it is advertising, although it is because there are no equivalent articles for any of their competetors and by virtue of actually having a WP article (and therefore gaining a higher profile because of how search engines rank WP articles}. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:21, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: article is well sourced. No reason to delete. For the understanding of the nominator, referencing actually means that it is notable as published by third party sources. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:19, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Notable company. Northamerica1000(talk) 11:58, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:26, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Not obviously noteworthy, but the supply of sources would seem to disagree. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:41, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- very weak keep I am not impressed by the awards. I no longer regard listings for "fastest growing" or the equivalent as showing notability -- I regard them as the equivalent of "not yet notable" Nor am I impressed by the references, which are either routine notices or PR based--I have boldly removed the one from PRwire--that Google News includes it is a trap for the unwary. Nor does the promotional writing help--I've removed some repetitive jargon: the word "solutions" in a non-,mathematical articles is a Red Flag, indicating writing by a press agent or someone whose vocabulary has been overinfluenced by press agents. I'm judging by market share . As I see it, that and noteworthy products are the major factor that make businesses notable. DGG ( talk ) 02:56, 29 April 2012 (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.