Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nash Paints

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 17:27, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nash Paints[edit]

Nash Paints (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Run of the mill local paint company. Not notable enough. 2Joules (talk) 06:08, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. When I first saw this article, it was completely unsourced. Since then, sources have been added. The question is, are the sources sufficient to meet WP:CORP? ~Anachronist (talk) 06:57, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @User:Anachronist I just checked the sources. They are local news outlets where news liek this is common everyday fodder. Nothing to push it over GNG. 2Joules (talk) 07:05, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    That's just the problem. NewsDay (Zimbabwean newspaper) and The Standard (Zimbabwe) look more like national news outlets — or at least they are both published by a large news organization. Zimbabwe is a small-ish country, about the size of California area-wise, so "local" and "national" might be basically the same thing. WP:CORP requires sources of at least regional, or national scope. ~Anachronist (talk) 07:14, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@User:Anachronist Yes. I think that is part of the problem, a company like this will never get even a trivial mention in the US but it might be worthy of mention in daily news in a place like zimbabwe where large organization have to find something to publish. However, even in this situation, the company got only 4-5 mentions, so I don't think that it can pass WP:CORP 2Joules (talk) 07:20, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The first three citations give significant coverage, more than mentions, so technically the subject complies with WP:CORP. But I agree also, a company like this in the United States would likely not merit an article. Unfortunately our policies and guidelines don't account for scale. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:13, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 10:32, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Zimbabwe-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 10:32, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Coverage by national newspapers in Zimbabwe. Significant for offering painting services on credit unlike most paint manufacturers, although that text from an earlier version has now been edited out. A company can be both unexciting and notable. Eastmain (talkcontribs) 15:57, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Like watching paint dry? ~Anachronist (talk) 17:06, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep Hurungudo (talk) 10:28, 19 June 2018 (UTC) The company looks notable enough and have also added some controversies associated.[reply]
  • Weak keep while holding my nose. Technically it meets WP:CORP as I commented above, but this company wouldn't merit an article if it were in the United States with similar coverage. AFD isn't the place to refine our inclusion criteria, however, so at this time it seems we don't have grounds for deletion based on existing policies and guidelines. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:02, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep based on existing sources - I also disagree with the description "local" given that they apparently have branches all over the country. The "controversy" section which has been added gives a different perspective - it was a bit repetitive so I have pruned it, but it seems to merit inclusion in the article. --bonadea contributions talk 13:22, 20 June 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.