Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Good Garage Scheme

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. It's a weak consensus, but it's a consensus. Krakatoa Katie 01:22, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good Garage Scheme

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

Fails WP:COMPANY, secondary source (Car Dealer mag) appears to be a press release, other sources are primary (company website). Article is overtly promotional. The Interior (Talk) 21:56, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 00:07, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 00:07, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. With sources like this I think it would pass the notability threshold. I think a promotional tone should be fixed through normal editing rather than deletion. I have seen substantial criticisms by independent sources which are mysteriously missing from the "criticism" section (looking at the article history, they were previously added by IPs but deleted by the article creator. I spy a COI, but again, deleting the article is not the best solution to that. bobrayner (talk) 15:32, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The criticism (while it was allowed to appear) alleged that this site was a marketing effort/customer loyalty scheme for Forte products. As such, this perhaps is not a company per se. Source you provided reads very much like a press release/puff piece, as I feel the article does now. Should we have an article for a marketing effort for a company that doesn't have an article? The Interior (Talk) 19:52, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:25, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Notability isn't inherited; we have notable software written by non-notable coders, notable objects made in non-notable factories, and so on. In this case, I think there is sufficient third-party coverage of the Good Garage Scheme to get it over the notability threshold, but only just. The article's other problems should be corrected through normal editing imho, but I wouldn't completely rule out deletion as an answer to that. Could go either way on this, and if you insist on deleting it, I won't be crying myself to sleep :-) bobrayner (talk) 11:57, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the removal of adcopy stuff would leave very little, and I wouldn't feel comfortable rewriting with just the Get Surrey article as a source. So I think I'll keep this open for now. The Interior (Talk) 17:37, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There is enough RS material to meet WP:N. I added some referenced info to the article in a history section. That should give those interested in the article an idea of what Wikipedia is looking for and how to cite that info. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 15:36, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now I'm really confused. Uzma, the information you have added is for a UK government-backed scheme that was never implemented. This "Good Garage Scheme" is not government affiliated, so I'm wondering how those additions are relevant, besides the shared name. One of the main reasons I've put this up for AfD is that there is some major concerns that this scheme is not what it is being represented as, and now its even worse, as the reader will now think this is an official government oversight program. If you have some RS's about this subject please supply. The Interior (Talk) 22:52, 8 December 2010 (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.