Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/R+L Carriers

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. Nja²⁴⁷ 09:11, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

R+L Carriers

This is a thinly-veiled promotional piece for its subject. It is the sixth attempt to establish this article by User:TruckTech (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), whose contribution history suggests that he has a proximate relationship with the subject, creating conflict. (The first five attempts ended in deletions; cf. the log].) In addition to its promotional bent, this incarnation struggles with asserting notability per WP:CORP; I think it does not meet the standard, but you may disagree — hence its nomination here rather than a prod. (N.B. Several of the article's external references relate to the subject's sports-related marketing campaigns and must be disregarded.) Jim Ward ^{(talk·stalk)} 20:03, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't see this as overly promotional, and the company is sufficiently notable to have an article in my opinion. Looie496 (talk) 22:59, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I haven't yet done enough research to give a "keep" or "delete" opinion, but I would like to point out that there is no reason why coverage of the subject's sports-related marketing campaigns should be disregarded. If this coverage is by independent reliable sources then it establishes notability just the same as coverage of any other activity. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:22, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ARticle needs work, but I agree with Looie. Subject is notable. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:45, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It'd contribute more meat to the debate if editors who comment would explain their claims of the subject's notability. Granted, this company has some bulk, but size and marketing money alone don't satisfy the requirement. Consider this guidance from WP:Notability (companies and organizations):

Notable means "worthy of being noted" or "attracting notice." It is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance." Please consider notable and demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education.

Consider the depth and breadth of each reference cited in the article:

Reference 1 is a case study done by Sprint in furtherance of its own business. It's not independent journalism by anyone's measure and is targeted at narrowly at Sprint's current and prospective customers.

Reference 2 is a 13-page trade-press article in which the subject is appears by name once in a list among 99 other carriers; it is also mentioned once in the prose.

Reference 3 is a list on a website in which the subject is mentioned by name once. It is not press coverage.

Reference 4 is a case study for GOSOF.com in which the subject's use of GOSOF.com's product is discussed. Same commentary applies as for Reference 1.

Reference 5 is a mention in a list. According to the list's publisher, the information about the subject was supplied by the subject itself, thus making it a primary source.

Reference 6 is promotional and reads like a press release.

Reference 7 is a brief piece from the sports section of the Times-Picayune that announces the subject's sponsorship of the New Orleans Bowl.

Bottom line? No independent journalism is cited save for the last reference, which is tangential to the company's business. I'm unconvinced that the criteria of WP:CORP and WP:Notability (companies and organizations) are satisfied. Jim Ward ^{(talk·stalk)} 01:27, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is Wikipedia, and "notability" means what the majority of editors take it to mean. My view is that fame and importance are sufficient to establish notability. I'm not sure I can claim the support of the majority, but I'm pretty sure I'm not alone. Looie496 (talk) 02:39, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - (Disclosure: TruckTech asked me for assistance when s/he was re-writing the article, details on my talk page) I do not see real evidence of promotional language in the article. Heck, I don't even see any adjectives in the article. Furthermore, the company has received coverage in independent sources. It may not be extensive, but it is there. Finally, while TruckTech may have a conflict of interest, s/he has been very upfront about it and does seem interested in writing a neutral article. TN X Man 15:26, 27 April 2009 (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.