Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bookitbee

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. J04n(talk page) 16:17, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bookitbee

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

All sources are PR or SPS. No coverage in reliable sources sufficiant to pass WP:GNG or WP:NORG Jbh ^Talk 14:16, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Update Based on sources presented by Northamerica1000 this nomination should now be seen as neither keep nor delete. I do not think the material is sufficient to pass ORGDEPTH but there is an argument to be made for passing GNG. Jbh ^Talk 13:18, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 14:17, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nothing at all convincing for solid notability and this should've been PRODed had it been better reviewed. I know I would've tagged it as such. SwisterTwister talk 23:47, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@SwisterTwister: You are right. I was checking a bunch of reviews by a new NPPer I came across and screwed up myself. duh. Jbh ^Talk 00:45, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 18:40, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Below are two sources that provide significant coverage. Additionally, the third listed source provides three paragraphs about the company. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:25, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:48, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Northamerica1000: thanks for noting those sources however, two of those stories are likely placed PR pieces. KentOnline has a link Submit a story so I am disinclined to consider it RS. A single piece in The Telegraph is insufficient to satisfy WP:ORGDEPTH. Jbh ^Talk 20:40, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Jbhunley: The KentOnline articles are both bylined articles written by a staff writer who is employed by the source; they are not user-submitted content. Many news sources provide "submit a story" types of pages, but this does not negate the reliability of news articles authored by publication staff. For example, see CNN's feedback page, where people can submit story ideas and news tips. Would this then disqualify all CNN articles and television news reports? Certainly not. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:36, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, my error, they had a PR'y whiff to them and I assumed from there. I am still not thrilled about the depth of coverage and that two of three articles are by the same reporter. Another article or two, particularly demonstrating coverage outside of five months in 2014 would make me feel better. At best I can say I am neutral on their inclusion and I will so note under my nomination statement. Jbh ^Talk 13:18, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets WP:GNG, although on a weaker level. Some source examples are listed below. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:01, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

Keep The sources found by Northamerica1000 (talk · contribs) in The Kent and Sussex Courier and KM Group provide significant coverage of the subject, allowing it to meet Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. Cunard (talk) 05:09, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sources which Northamerica1000 has brought forward (The Telegraph, KM Group etc.) are beyond all doubt reliable, and cover the organization reasonably in-depth. I'm convinced that this article meets the requirements set out at WP:GNG. Omni Flames ^{let's talk about it} 08:12, 6 June 2016 (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.