Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maid to Clean

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. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 17:43, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maid to Clean[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Run-of-the-mill cleaning company fails WP:NCORP. There's an interview (fails WP:ORGIND) and a story in a local business paper (fails WP:AUD), and I don't think KANAVA is an RS. ~ A412 ^talk! 00:44, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Virginia, and Washington, D.C.. ~ A412 ^talk! 00:44, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per reasons provided by nom - non notable cleaning service. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 18:31, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Llajwa (talk) 13:25, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete The Washington Blade and WRC-TV references are good and provide SIGCOV. The other articles are WP:ROUTINE. But two more pieces of coverage similar to the Washington Blade story and it would probably switch me to the Keep column. Chetsford (talk) 21:44, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:NCORP. This business is owned by a Latino businesswoman, part of LGBT community, and in such cases exceptions apply due to systemic bias. This is noted on WP:MULTSOURCES, quoted:

The word "multiple" is not a set number and depends on the type of organization or product. Editors should recognize certain biases, such as recentism (greater availability of recent sources) when assessing historical companies or systemic bias (greater availability of English and Western sources) when discussing organizations in the developing world. Therefore, for example, a Bangladeshi women's rights organization from the 1960s might establish notability with just one or two quality sources, while the same is not true for a tech start-up in a major U.S. metropolitan area.

The article was independently reviewed by @Capsulecap: and there are at least three in-depth references about this minority-owned business (such articles are rare on Wikipedia). In-depth articles: [1] in Washington Blade, [2] in Washington Business Journal, and [3] in WRC-TV as noted kindly by Chetsford. This article is about Cinderella Bermudez but still indicates notability. I think we should reconsider this nom. Thanks. Hstarek (talk) 06:03, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I'd like to counter A412's WP:AUD argument. Washington Business Journal is a major U.S. state-level business newspaper and same is the case for Washington Blade and WRC-TV, meeting WP:AUD criteria quoted below:

Significant coverage in media with an international, national, or at least regional audience (e.g., the biggest daily newspaper in any US state) is a strong indication of notability. At least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary. At least one statewide source is necessary and we have such sources. Hstarek (talk) 06:10, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Washington Business Journal self-describes as local. "The Washington Business Journal features local business news about Washington, D.C". ~ A412 ^talk! 19:29, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced that WP:MULTSOURCES' carve-out for systemic bias applies to a business in the D.C. metro area since it clarifies we should adopt relative standards "when discussing organizations in the developing world" and the business in question here is in the capital city of an OECD member state and the world's largest economy. That aside, however, I still maintain this article is right on the cusp and a couple additional consumer media outlets covering this business would crest the threshold of WP:N. It might be a case of WP:TOOSOON where the article might reasonably be recreated in the future (perhaps even the very near future). Chetsford (talk) 05:23, 31 January 2024 (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.