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.
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.
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.
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.