Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yellow Van Handyman

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. Consensus is that the claims within the article lack verifiability through reliable sources. —SpacemanSpiff 04:41, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yellow Van Handyman[edit]

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

This article is likely created as a puff piece for Jerrod Sessler, whose own article is up for deletion as being nonnotable and a subject of paid editing. I can't find the significant coverage and discussion of this company in reliable, third-party sources required by WP:N and WP:CORP. I don't think that the Entrepreneur magazine and Franchise awards assert notability within themselves, as they aren't very prestigious in themselves. I recommend deletion since, although the article looks nice, the company itself isn't notable and the self-promotion and advertising at work here is NOT the purpose of Wikipedia. Them From Space 01:35, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
KeepThis is an article about an innovative franchising company in an industry that is not traditionally known for franchising. There are currently 40 Yellow Van franchises in two countries. It is the largest professional handyman company in the world. Is that not significant? The fact that it has been recognized by two national leading expert publications that specialize in rating businesses, franchises, and innovative business opportunities is by definition "significant coverage." The International Franchising Association repeatedly publishes this company as an example of successful franchising. They ARE the experts. The LA Times recognizes this business model as innovative franchising. Entrepreneurial business models like this one is what keeps the economy going when people lose their jobs, not just in America, but in Canada too! USchick (talk) 02:28, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Which reliable source says it is the "largest largest professional handyman company in the world." 40 franchises does not seem all that large. Edison (talk) 04:56, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I specifically remember reading it, but apparently I was reading it about their competitor Mr. Handyman, my bad! I was going to work on that article next, which really needs help, but I'm scared to do anything now until this is resolved. Why is that article not marked for deletion? I'm not saying that it needs to be, I'm simply asking. Has anyone looked at the article for the Atlanta Bread Company? No one is deleting that one either. Like I said on the other page, I don't have a dog in this fight, do whatever you want, but if you have a deletion policy, at least you should enforce it with some sort of uniform standards. I'm not sure where all this hostility is coming from, I didn't realize I wandered into a hornet's nest. Relax DGG! :-) USchick (talk) 06:43, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that most of the content of this article duplicates the one on Sessler, written by a different editor. At this edit What we certainly do not need is both of them. I'm not sure which is the more notable. DGG ( talk ) 05:20, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete examining the manner the duplicated content was added, as discussing in the AfD for Sissler, the sensible course now is to delete both of them. We do not compromise on spam. Possibly sometime in the future, somebody else may want to write an article on them. DGG ( talk ) 05:57, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article has a very promotional tone consistent with its questionable history; it's a borderline WP:CSD#G11 speedy. I don't think we can trust it to be a neutral and encyclopedic article. And there are many footnotes but most of them look quite promotional in nature, and some that aren't (an LA Times story) don't mention the company even trivially. A Google news archive search for the name of the company finds nothing usable as a source so I'm not convinced this passes WP:ORG. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:40, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article has some references, but I see very brief mention in the LA Times, and longer pieces on blogs or websites which might not qualify as independent and reliable sources. Just not quite seeing that it satisfies WP:N unless someone can cut through the puffery and spam and point out the best claims to notability. (As an aside, it's not clear why a local handyman would want to pay a franchise fee to be a "Yellow Van Handyman" or how he could afford to sit back and hire others to be "handymen" working for him as the franchisee, when there appears to be no TV advertising and thus name recognition as there is for many other companies which fix garage doors, or rooter out clogged drains, or fix leaky basements, or kill bugs). A claim (verified where?) of 40 franchisees in the US and Canada does not seem that notable in itself. Edison (talk) 14:58, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lacks significant coverage in 3rd party sources RadioFan (talk) 19:42, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - sources given do not strike me as particularly representing significant coverage, and the reliable of them is highly in doubt, especially ones of a "blog" type nature. Therefore, I am unconvinced that the subject passes WP:CORP. Cocytus [»talk«] 21:22, 15 February 2010 (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.