Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Classic Party Rentals

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. Euryalus (talk) 22:05, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Classic Party Rentals[edit]

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

WP:ENN, fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Almost the total scope of coverage is press releases. No significant coverage elsewhere (because it is in a niche market), and one would expect that for a 30-year-old company if it was truly notable. MSJapan (talk) 03:19, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I still confirm my PROD, still nothing convincing for any actual solid independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 03:24, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:58, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:58, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet WP:CORP, which excludes pure "business as usual" and requires that there be more, such as: "When evaluating the notability of organizations or products, please consider whether they have had any significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education." All that we have for this company is that it is big. I find lots of adverts and one article about the departure of the CEO. Nothing notable. LaMona (talk) 05:23, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There is at least one reporter, Lisa Hurley, covering this topic in depth (see, [1], [2], [3]). In depth coverage goes well beyond our WP:SIGCOV notability requirement. There is a lot of WP:ROUTINE coverage of changing personnel and acquisitions but I think bankruptcy and sale of the company is not so routine and has been covered by many reliable sources (see [4], [5], [6]. Additionally I don't feel those supporting delete here have done adequate research. There are a lot of press releases but the coverage clearly goes beyond that though you have to sift through a lot to find it. SwisterTwister asserts that his original prod reason, "Basically only sourced by press releases and my searches have certainly found nothing else better aside from 1 local news item, there's nothing else convincing for the applicable notability." is still valid even though I deprodded giving a specific non-PR source and 10 pages of HighBeam search results. LaMona wants to see demonstrable effect of the subject. As the largest player in a rapidly-changing industry, I think that is clearly the case. It may be argued that this is a niche industry but it is a $5 billion niche ([7]) so presumably worthy of coverage here on Wikipedia. ~Kvng (talk) 14:31, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see the highbeam articles since I don't have access, but every other article listed is about the company filing for Chapter 11. I don't see how that makes the company notable, plus it's a single story written many times. And being big isn't one of the criteria for wp:corp. LaMona (talk) 14:44, 8 July 2016 (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.