Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Forever (website)

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 no consensus. Euryalus (talk) 22:23, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Forever (website)

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

There is nothing significant about the organization or website here. It should be deleted. Light21 19:32, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Keep Plenty of non-trivial coverage from sources that easily meet WP:RS, including Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Detroit Free Press, and Pittsburgh Tribune-Review. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:47, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Speedy~~ Keep: ~~Bad faith nomination; it is just one of many others by Light2021. Anup [Talk] 21:13, 17 September 2016 (UTC)~~ Sources cited in the article clearly establish that subject meets the WP:GNG and WP:NCORP standard. Anup [Talk] 21:22, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Light21 has nominated a flood of articles today, which had me concerned for a moment too, but I've been going through and agree that >90% fully warrant deletion. I'm wondering where they're finding so many relentlessly terrible articles that escaped notice for so long ... - David Gerard (talk) 16:06, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~: Article reference are used mainly from one source Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, and all articles are written in a manner that promotes website as advertising or promotion not some significant coverage. Alexa Ranking shows 217,520, surely not very popular website to impact. Articles lacks major independent references related to this category other than repeated media sources. Article is not appropriate to the wikipedia guidelines as per WP:NOT Light21 22:10, 17 September 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Light2021 (talk • contribs)

Comment I've struck your !vote; You only get to cast one, which you've already done via your nomination. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 03:05, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:06, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:06, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:06, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure The sourcing looks good at a glance, but as nominator notes, it's a single local paper. And the tone of the article is blatantly promotional and has me reaching for the WP:TNT. I'd like much better sourcing before saying "keep", and even then it still needs a non-promotional rewrite - David Gerard (talk) 15:44, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment There's non-trivial coverage from Pittsburgh's top two newspapers, plus the article from the Detroit Free Press. That was enough to tip the scales for me. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:34, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Meets WP:GNG based on sourcing from Pittsburgh Post Gazette, Pittsburgh Tribune Review, and Detroit Free Press. Safehaven86 (talk) 21:19, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- coverage presented above does not meet WP:AUD and is strictly local and run-of-the-mill: "local company does well", not much more than this. Does not rise to the level of WP:SIGCOV. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:53, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sources from the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, the Detroit Free Press, and the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review are all major regional newspapers that provide significant coverage of the subject so WP:AUD and Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline are met.
Any promotional issues are minor and can be addressed through normal editing, not deletion. Wikipedia:Editing policy#Wikipedia is a work in progress: perfection is not required and Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#Surmountable problems.
Cunard (talk) 23:13, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, the Detroit Free Press, and the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review are all regional press, not meeting WP:AUD requirement. This is insufficient for notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:12, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as examining the articles listed above are in fact advertorials in that one of them says the business "guards your memories!", entirely PR, the next one then is a few paragraphs but it noticeably contains interviewed information and also company information, whereas the other is a clear interview with the CEO. None of this comes to comes to both independent notability and substance; all of this is still thin and is therefore suggestive of fluff, not news. SwisterTwister talk 08:05, 26 September 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.