Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Worldwide Express (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 delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:26, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Worldwide Express[edit]

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

promotional article; trivial awards DGG ( talk ) 01:08, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As per its previous outcome, the article was recreated and it seems that it contains the same problems and content, the company fails to meet GNG and fails to meet its specific guideline WP:CORP, more than its existence must be shown in order for it to be maintained within Wikipedia. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 02:03, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - IMHO a company of a substantial employment size (570 employees on LinkedIn alone) and revenue ($500mm claimed) is likely notable, and should have some sort of article on WP. Obviously this opens Pandora's box for their marketing department. Their common-word name makes researching the editorial coverage difficult, but there certainly is some (Reuters, BusinessInsider, the BusinessWeek listing). I was unaware of the 2010 AFD, and did the initial review when this article was re-added in late 2012. I cut back much of the hyperbole, which the marketing flacks have not challenged (not that there is none now). As such, I'm inclined to let it live, perhaps with some pruning. DGG was quite right to nix the CEO's article.--Nixie9✉ 17:55, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete & Salt per nom, Seems more promotional than anything. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 00:39, 16 July 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) 18:07, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but tag -- If the turnover is correct, this is certainly a notable company. The fact that the article is a poor one implies improvement, not deletion. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:16, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, trivial awards and mentions don't pass WP:CORP. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 17:36, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Dennis Brown. GregJackP Boomer! 15:28, 29 July 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.