Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Certified Automotive Parts Association

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. I see a rought consensus here to Keep this article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:00, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Certified Automotive Parts Association[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)

Came here for a COI request but found the page doesn't meet WP:NCORP. While looking for references to satisfy the COI request, I was unable to find anything meeting WP:ORGCRIT with the exception of one book reference here. CNMall41 (talk) 03:53, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CNMall41 (talk) 03:53, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is a keep. Here's some sources
- Probably meet WP:SIRS
  - via General Accounting Office
  - Subcommittee hearing
  - Technical Book with moderate coverage
  - NIST directory
  - (possible SIRS) case filing
  - (likely SIRS, hard to tell from snippet) Journal of American Insurance
- non-WP:SIRS things that may still improve WP:V

—siro χ o 05:44, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Which one of these falls into the significant coverage definition? Also note I believe the congressional hearing is part of someone from the organization's testimony. None of these meet WP:CORPDEPTH in my opinion. --CNMall41 (talk) 16:52, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The GAO source meets it. The Reverse Engineering book meets it (check for 2 locations). The NIST directory meets it. The subcommittee hearing would generally work for me as it should be under penalty of purjury, but we have enough either way. The other ones are a bit more dubious for various reasons but again, we have plenty. —siro χ o 17:39, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A directory listing meets ORGCRIT? That is the very definition of "trivial coverage" in that guideline. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:57, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not aware of any specific definition of any directory listing as trivial, especially not under that guideline. I'm not sure if you were referring to the "simple listings or compilations" examples of trivial coverage, but this does not fit in that. This directory listing meets WP:CORPDEPTH as it ... provides an overview, description,... survey, ... or evaluation of the ... organization.. —siro χ o 19:46, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would think keep because it provides a list of standards for their industry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Starlighsky (talk • contribs) 13:17, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Which is cited to the organization's website. I also do not see anything in WP:NCORP that says we create pages on organizations because they provide industry standards. Can you tell me how this page meets notability guidelines based on the available sourcing (a requirement of NCORP)? --CNMall41 (talk) 16:47, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:34, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:14, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are discussions of the group in peer-reviewed journals [1] and others. The Gscholar linked in the template above brings them up. [2] and a legal one: [3]. Oaktree b (talk) 14:55, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to get my head around this. If this was a person, having peer-reviewed journals could help with notability under WP:NSCHOLAR. However, how do discussions in the IEEE and a legal document meet WP:ORGCRIT?--CNMall41 (talk) 17:57, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The first two talk about the thing for a paragraph, and we have about 20 of them in Gscholar, should be enough for GNG. If this was a person, we'd be off to the races; Mr. XYZ discussed in 20 peer-reviewed journals? Easy notability. Oaktree b (talk) 00:10, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not saying we have enough for a 40 paragraph article here in wiki, but it's at least enough for a stub. Oaktree b (talk) 00:11, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation. I understand that and looked at the references. These are mainly saying that it exists and a brief overview of what it does. Nothing significant so still not seeing how this would get over the hurdle of WP:NCORP. If we allowed articles to be created that we cannot expand and consider them notable based on these types of mentions we could create a lot of company pages. --CNMall41 (talk) 00:35, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep For me, there are adequate sources such as the two books available to Google Books references above (Motor Vehicle Safety and Reverse Engineering) that meet the criteria for establishing notability. I can understand why there might be questions of the level of "in-depthness" (is that a word?) in those articles but you'd have to start by asking what level you belive might exist to describe the company. Sometimes a company can be notable and do something very simple that doesn't exactly lend itself to the availability of pages of analysis or opinion and I believe this is one of those organizations. With that in mind, the sources meet the criteria in my opinion. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:26, 16 July 2023 (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.