Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Green Tomato Cars

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. Consensus is for the article to be retained. Discourse regarding the article's tone and sources can continue on its talk page if desired. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:29, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Green Tomato Cars[edit]

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

Just a minicab firm. Notability not demonstrated. Most of the refs are trade papers and the like. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 15:52, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's not "just a minicab firm", as The Daily Telegraph put it, it is "London's second largest minicab firm" (and since Uber has gone pear shaped, it might be the biggest). Plenty of reliable sources. We are here to write an encyclopedia, not to trash one. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:01, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Highly promotional article, written by someone who ~~clearly~~likely has a CoI. I know AfD isn't clean-up (why not?), but G11 exists as well and I'm not going to get into the middle of a dispute among admins, but I fail to see how any of this article keeps a NPOV. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 16:06, 4 April 2018 (UTC) Withdrawn. I did my best to remove the promotional tone and content of article. But I'm certainly not voting keep. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 16:21, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's not promotional, I've just cleaned it up. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:08, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ritchie333:--If the edits, executed by you, were your definition of cleanup, well.......~ Winged Blades^Godric 05:49, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And, this was a good-enough tagging.~ Winged Blades^Godric 05:56, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Humourous name, but notable enough (as the second largest cab firm in London) nonetheless. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 16:15, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 16:28, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 16:28, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 16:28, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Ritchies massive improvements as well as the abundance of sources on Google. –Davey2010^Talk 16:35, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Trade press sources are necessary for some types of topic as they provide a good insider perspective on technical issues. Andrew D. (talk) 17:11, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Pure advertising. The contents of the article is exactly what they would use as a press release, brand names and all. Juudging by the advertorials and well-managed references, they have quite enough disguised press releases in circulation without our adding to them. It wouldn't matter how notable the firm might be --not that I trust the refs to be objective enough to show it-- because Not Advertising is one of our basic principles. DGG ( talk ) 18:49, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Since I (and El Cid) cleaned the article up (see the stats), are you suggesting we don’t know how to write a neutral encyclopedia article? I’d be interested to know what sort of press release would talk about a product recall leading to financial problems. And last time I looked, WP:N is still a thing. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:56, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I judge by the state of the article. Articles I've written or rewritten have been deleted also. I agree that there is one RS about financial problems that might be more than a notice. DGG ( talk ) 05:18, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Without minimally under-emphasizing your immense content-creation/upgradation-skills, which is surely justified by the numerous GAs etc. developed by you (to be fair, I've only one and that speaks volumes....), going by your edits at this article, I guess the answer about neutral and non-promotional prose will be no.And, I guess that's got to do something with the screening of PR stuff, business-website-spam-mentions etc. from reliable sources.~ Winged Blades^Godric 06:03, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment--I've pruned the article, by removing all unreliable sources and accompanying content and post-cleanup, me thinks that it's a borderline keep.~ Winged Blades^Godric 05:49, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you have - you've just removed the sources you don't like - and have addressed your concerns on the talk page. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:16, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It sounds like a normal wikipedia article about a firm.Marcnut1996 (talk) 13:11, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It may seem a bit 'wow, we're a great company' in style, but it is not unambiguous advertising -- and actually, its alright. It is a notable firm per above. No reason to en masse delete. Personally I would get rid of the awards section if none of those awards have an article about them, but that is neither here nor there. We are not a trophy cabinet. talk to !dave 16:18, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per cleanup, and part of Transdev. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:58, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all the above. Taxi for Haworth! Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:04, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While some of the references aren't the best (App Store etc), the other sources show a sufficient level of notability. It has also been cleaned up enough to not be devastatingly promotional. Anarchyte (work | talk) 08:19, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - article seems fine as written, sourcing could be better but there's more - CNBC,[[1]] WTOP,[[2]] and Washington Times[[3]] have some coverage of the DC launch. A Bloomberg article is paywalled, but the Google summary mentions the company.[[4]] TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 22:45, 11 April 2018 (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.