Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/JP Turner & Company

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. Opinions vary about the significance of the sources found, but it is safe to say that it is not possible to write an encyclopaedic article complying with WP:NPOV and WP:V using the available sources. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 19:24, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

JP Turner & Company[edit]

Delete for non-notability. Google search only returned the company website as its top-10 hits (This company's page on Wikipedia was also on the top-10 hits). Cuil search returned even less hits. (UTC) Arbiteroftruth (talk) 16:49, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article was created by a single purpose account, and most of the edits have been made by SPAs, including J.P. Turner Official (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). There is a single link at the bottom to an independent source (businessweek.com), but it is their directory of all companies, and therefore not significant coverage. Thus, no SIGNIFICANT coverage in independent sources, which is what the relevant notability guideline requires. UnitedStatesian (talk) 17:02, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I have found three websites, which can be considered reliable and independent of JP Turner, in which JP Turner is the subject, and where it is receiving non-trivial coverage: [1], [2], and [3]. It may be argued that these three websites mean that the article on JP Turner & Company meets WP:N. However, can the article be kept on the basis of three judicial websites describing criminal actions by the company? I am not sure, so I would like to know what other people think. JEdgarFreeman (talk) 17:12, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Presuming no more reliable source are found, and I have not been able to find anymore, I believe the article would be a serious breach of WP:NPOV if it was left up. This is because it could only use the three sources I have cited, which would mean the article is mostly describing the criminal actions of the company, and that means it would not be a neutral article. Without any more reliable sources, that WP:NPOV problem would not be solved. As a result, until more reliable sources can be found to balance the judicial websites, I recommend that the article does not exist. JEdgarFreeman (talk) 17:25, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- - Comment Not to split semantic hairs, but I think there is a difference between non-trivial and significant, and I don't think any of the 3 meet the "significant" standard. "2" and "3" are both press releases, which are not secondary sources. So no, I don't think an article can be kept on this basis (esp. since no newspaper appears to have thought it significant enough to do any secondary reporting on the judicial actions). And I wouldn't use the word "criminal." UnitedStatesian (talk) 17:22, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep providing that the sources given above are incorporated. Jessi1989 (talk) 17:17, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Jessi1989. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:28, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the 3 cites given are pro-forma state web links from New Jersey, still got good enough. Bearian (talk)

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.