Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EagleRider

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. SarahStierch (talk) 01:22, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

EagleRider[edit]

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

Non-notable company. There are lots of press releases out there, and there are about a dozen news articles about motorcycle touring or motorcycle rental, and in passing they will say, "Several companies offer motorcycle rentals, such as Company A, Company B, and EagleRider". That is not the sustained, in-depth coverage where EagleRider is the actual subject of the article required by WP:COMPANY. Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:25, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - They are the world's largets motorbike rental company as confirmed by the Wall Street Journal (this one is not significant coverage). In terms of signficant coverage, there is a profile in this book, coverage in the Denver Post, and for those with Highbeam access, there is a Chicago Sun-Times article. It's hard to find this stuff as they are prolific publishers of press releases but these sources are enough to demonstrate notability. -- Whpq (talk) 17:46, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Whpq. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 17:33, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 17:29, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'm surprise that this was relisted, since the consensus above appeared to have been conclusive. Either way it was covered in reliable sources so it's a pass. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 22:37, 21 November 2013 (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.