Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MotorEasy

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. Sandstein 09:20, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

MotorEasy[edit]

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

Pure promotional spam/advertisement. Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 09:46, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 10:19, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 10:19, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Needs copy editing, and some proof of notoriety, but seems like the article isn't purely advertisement... Should be edited for Non POV. Lee Vilenski(talk) 12:05, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- promotional 'cruft and does not meet WP:NCORP / WP:CORPDEPTH. The article on the founder Duncan McClure Fisher appears to be part of the same promotional walled garden as it has been created at the same time. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:40, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:23, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Purely promotional, with poor sourcing (tabloids, a Wikipedia cite, and an ad by The Telegraph). Article creator has a long history of automotive-related promotional edits and spamming, with one article (The Motor Ombudsman) currently tagged for speedy deletion. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 05:44, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @K.e.coffman and Beemer69: Thank you for your comments and suggestions on this article, as a result I've edited it to improve WP:NPOV in line with WP:CCPOL, can you take another look and share your thoughts as to whether you believe this is satisfied please - with any specific concerns highlighted? With regards to WP:NCORP / WP:CORPDEPTH I've also added more independent secondary sources - now includes a broad range of broadsheet and tabloid sources, industry specific articles and reliable online sources. These are almost all national publications with large readerships to meet the WP:NCORP guidelines "An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources". There are now 30+ independent and national references to satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH "If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability". Thank you Shamonioli (talk) 07:41, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Entirely promotional, reference fails the criteria for establishing notability, fails WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND. In response to Shamonioli, the criteria for establishing notability does not rest solely on whether references are published in reliable, independent, secondary sources, but that those articles must also be "intellectually independent" - there provided references fail this more important test. The references rely on information produced or provided or sponsored by the company. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 17:11, 16 November 2017 (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.