Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/US Federal Contractor Registration (2nd nomination)

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 merge to System for Award Management. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:54, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

US Federal Contractor Registration[edit]

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

CSD G4 declined.

The current article does not addresst the concerns from the previous AfD. Triplestop (talk) 18:41, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I only looked at the citations currently in the article:

citation #3

The earlier version of the article is here. It said "The company has been featured in the Washington Post [...]" which was not supported by the story cited, which does not mention the company or its principals. This version properly cites the same story to support the statement

In order to bid on a federal contract, a business must first go through an extensive registration process with the United States Federal Government that can take an extended period of time.

citation #2
The newly-added Fox News story is about another subject, with three sentences related to the company: slightly more than a passing mention.

citation #4
The femacontracts.com page (archive link because site is offline now) is not an independent source: the domain is registered to Daniel Driscoll of St. Petersburg, Florida. The current version of the Wikipedia article says the company is in St. Petersburg and that its treasurer is Dan Driscoll. The citation calls it the "FEMA Contracts website" which could confuse readers into thinking the site belongs to the Federal Emergency Management Agency, a department of the US government.

citation #1
The Washington Business Journal story is entirely about the company and is written in a skeptical manner. The site is the 384th most popular in the United States, according to Alexa so it must have a good-sized audience. —rybec 21:10, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:37, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:37, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

comment on WBJ. WBJ is a frequent publisher of material based on press releases. The article here however appears not to be a press release, but a discussion of the product. (I do caution that it may have been inspired by a press release, with the writer then adding a paragraph of two of evaluation. Such is the manner of more sophisticated journalistic handling of press releases, but that tends to be almost indistinguishable from the normal run of business journalism) I dont think it's alone enough to support the notability of the company. If we do keep the article, the name must be changed to remove the impression that this is a government agency. DGG ( talk ) 05:55, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Plenty of room for the basics in Central Contractor Registration, which should probably be moved to the organization's new name? The basics here are worth including but not necessarily an independent article. Candleabracadabra (talk) 19:39, 23 September 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 03:25, 28 September 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.