Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PartsBase

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. Consensus is for deletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:28, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PartsBase[edit]

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

Article about an apparently non-notable company. The only available sources are press releases, routine listings, and a mentions in connection with fraud prosecution.[1][2] - Mr X 18:28, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 19:00, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 19:00, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 19:00, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:04, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:05, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Author's comment: I have included references in multiple news sources, as well as published journals and books. I believe it meets WP:GNG -- the platform has a very wide reach in the aviation sector; and clients include most big names in the industry. Silver Penguin (talk) 02:50, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- yet another marketplace, just going about its business. This content can be just as effectively housed on the org's web site, not here. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:57, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment At the risk of applying WP:OSE, the subject looks noteworthy enough based on the content in Category:Online marketplaces: look at articles like Cleanify, HomeAdvisor, LawnMowingOnline, ParqEx, Qrator etc, etc. just because this company doesn't serve home consumers directly, doesn't make it any less notable. Silver Penguin (talk) 06:26, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:10, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:55, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and GNG. References provided are routine business announcements. The comment in the lead on an A+ credit rating is typically company-oriented promotion. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 11:50, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is there anything I can do to fix such issues? It's not my intention to "promote" anything or present anything in a non-neutral manner. Silver Penguin (talk) 00:36, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To address the last question by the article's creator
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 14:00, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- to answer the article's creator question, promotional articles on nn entities cannot be improved through copyediting, or via introduction of yet more WP:SPIP sources. Deletion is the only logical outcome. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:13, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not writing this article as a promotional piece. If there's anything in particular you think violates the neutrality policy, let me know. Silver Penguin (talk) 19:33, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Promotional tone can be overcome, but lack of notability cannot. There simply isn't anything in-depth that can be used to meet WP:GNG. Mainly press releases and directory listings that I found. --CNMall41 (talk) 01:44, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I also can't find any reliable media coverage. Fails WP:GNG. I'm also a bit thrown off that what's listed as an annual report on their site, a great opportunity to promote highlights and accomplishments, is instead a sales brochure, complete with pricing. Also, the way the article is written is a bit disingenuous - to make it sound like their revenue is USD$1 billion, but upon closer reading, that's only the value of parts that were searched for in the database. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 00:57, 2 August 2017 (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.