Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beacon Plumbing

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. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:08, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Beacon Plumbing[edit]

[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 local run-of-the-mill company, there is some local coverage, mainly related to a lawsuit. Let us discuss whether it raises to the sufficient notability level. Ymblanter (talk) 15:22, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Ymblanter (talk) 15:22, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Ymblanter (talk) 15:22, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:49, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Most of the sources are not reliable and/or feature only trivial coverage. I do not believe the lawsuit alone would constitute sufficient notability per WP:ILLCON and WP:SUSTAINED. - Scio c (talk) 22:31, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete None of the sources provide substantive coverage beyond routine local news. Reywas92^Talk 06:04, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant coverage. Barca (talk) 22:58, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria for notability, fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:50, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I just don't understand how a page that has legitimate news sources discussing them can be deleted. I get it if I were submitting personal or company blogs, press releases, industry rags, etc. but legitimate news seems to be valid. This company, as an example, made national news with the super bowl and does tremendous goodwill locally. You're fine to remove the link to the site, as that seems to be something you all are having issues with, but don't act like KOMO, KXRO, Crime Stoppers, Fox News (local), Seattle Times, Houston Chronicle, and more are not credible sources. The page is not promotional in any sense, it actually calls attention to their lawsuit in the past. I'm fine if someone has issues with a page, but tell people how to improve it or what you'd like see removed to make it acceptable, in lieu of just keeping all these decisions in-house to the power editors. There are literally countless commerical businesses with Wiki pages, so that argument is out the window. There are countless pages on Wiki that go back on forth on prominence, but for this state this company is very widely known and big, no different than anything else on Wiki. It's just frustrating that 4 months after the case and adding more new citations from valid sources you just email saying it's slated for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IPlayNiceWithOthers (talk • contribs) 19:12, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

First step to understanding is to read our guidelines and policies. Companies/organization fall under WP:NCORP guidelines. The criteria for notability can be boiled down to a simple concept - someone, somwhere, wrote an in-depth piece which contains original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject and it was published in a suitable publication. That's it. The fall-out from this is that while "legitimate news sources" may tick the box on "suitable publication", if they simply interview someone *connected* with the business (CEO, investor, customer, etc) and not provide any independent analysis/comments/fact-checking on the company, then it fails as a suitable reference. It is that simple. If you can find at least two references that you believe meet the criteria, then all of the Delete !voters will probably change their minds if they agree. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:58, 23 August 2019 (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.