Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Economy Car 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. J04n(talk page) 23:55, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Economy Car Rentals[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. Vague claims of "resellers" and "cooperators" but nothing to indicate size of company or amount of business. No references outside the company, just two review sites. Sockpuppets suspected, there are at least six users who have only ever edited this article and nothing else. Dmol (talk) 09:29, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom, and I'm unable to find sources to show that the subject meets WP:NCORP or WP:GNG. --bonadea contributions talk 11:42, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Hello, I would like to improve the artice with your help, to prevent the deletion if possible. More specifically:

'Vague claims of "resellers" and "cooperators" ': The company should have the right not to reveal its cooperators, but if necessary a list can be included in the article with all resellers and cooperators. 'nothing to indicate size of company or amount of business': Again I don't believe such information should be public knowledge, nor I can think of a way to prove one's amount of business, open to suggestions. 'No references outside the company, just two review sites': Please indicate the information on the site that needs additional references. 'Sockpuppets suspected, there are at least six users who have only ever edited this article and nothing else': Editing only one article is against the rules of Wikipedia?

Overall, I am new to Wikipedia, I would prefer someone more experienced to give me advice on improving the page rather than suggesting the deletion of it. Thank you for your understanding.

Balaviaris (talk) 11:13, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Balaviaris ~~is one of the suspected sockpuppets. Editors user page is a copy of the article~~. (Stricken by Dmol. See comments below.)--Dmol (talk) 21:05, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I only did what wikipedia advises in these cases, to keep a copy in your user's page (quote from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Help,_my_article_got_nominated_for_deletion!#How_to_save_the_article: The best is to duplicate it in a subpage (on your user page), then improve when possible (if and when sources are found), then later convert back to an article). Anyway, I think the AfD was too harsh, Dmol should read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Guide_to_deletion#Considerations : "Unless it is obviously a hopeless case, consider sharing your reservations with the article creator, mentioning your concerns on the article's discussion page, and/or adding a "cleanup" template, instead of bringing the article to AfD." Nothing of the above was done. There wasn't even a warning, neither a recommendation for improvement. I would also recommend reading http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry before accusing someone of sockpuppeting. I really hope this discussion is something more than random personal attacks. Balaviaris (talk) 06:52, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Updated comment - I had not noticed that the copy of the page was put on Balaviaris user page as a backup copy at the same time the article was listed for AFD, so I have removed my comment. However, I have added a Conflict of Interest tag to the page as Balaviaris is an employee of Economy Car Rentals as shown by his/her comments on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Bonadea#Economy_Car_Rentals_page --Dmol (talk) 12:30, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Since my contribution on the article cannot be considered unbiased and objective, I will stop editing the Economy Car Rentals article. I only ask from a neutral user, like Dmol for example, to try and fix any remaining problems of the article. Deleting it still seems too final and completely unnecessary. Balaviaris (talk) 06:25, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Hi, this article was written from me, as everyone can edit articles, I would appreciate if you could remove the changes that has been done from other users to this article and leave it as it was before. I have no connection to this company and I am not working for them. I would appreciate if I could have the original version of my article. Thank you crasper —Preceding undated comment added 09:35, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:32, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:32, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:32, 16 May 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, L Faraone 01:16, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:CORPDEPTH spectacularly. 4 sources - two user-generated review sites and two pages from the subject's own website. I couldn't find a single usable source to come even close to meeting WP:GNG. And for the user who posted prior to the relisting, please read WP:OWN. Stalwart111 04:45, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This would be a suitable article for a business directory, but this is an encyclopaedia. Lack of reliable 3rd party sources to demonstrate compliance with the WP:CORPDEPTH criteria. AllyD (talk) 06:23, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly fails WP:CORP. hardly meets the requirements for a notable company. LibStar (talk) 06:52, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Half the car rental companies in wikipedia are in the exact same position with Economy Car Rentals, concerning references and notability, but only this one is submitted for deletion. Balaviaris (talk) 07:34, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And you are free to nominate those for deletion too (though I would be careful about doing so just to make a point). But the existence of other comparable articles is no reason for keeping this one. For the article to be kept, you need to substantiate that the subject is notable, per significant coverage in reliable sources. Stalwart111 08:37, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am not interesting in deleting other articles, just keeping this one. I only ask for some time to find a reliable source and link it to the article. If this is the main problem of the article, perhaps replace the AfD with Refimprove. Balaviaris (talk) 09:03, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A lack of references is a problem, but a lack of notability is a bigger problem. Obviously, you should be encouraged to find and add reliable sources, but the requirement is still for significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, so I'd be looking for more than one if I were you, because there are none at the moment. AfDs are usually listed for 7 days and then relisted if there is no obvious consensus. There are no requirements for it to remain open for any particular length of time beyond that. But you can always ask for the article to be userfied as an alternative to deletion. Or you can simply wait until significant coverage exists and then ask at WP:DRV for permission to recreate the article. Stalwart111 09:51, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I often try to rescue articles like this, but I was unable to find suitable sources for this one. 'DGG (at NYPL) (talk) 18:24, 28 May 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.