Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ARC Diversified

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. EdJohnston (talk) 01:39, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ARC Diversified (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Appears to fail WP:CORP; 195 g-hits with the majority referencing other uses of "Arc Diversified"; those that do mention this company do so in a "trivial or incidental" fashion; coverage is not in detail, as required by WP:N and CORP. Also COI issues with main author (Pnpointer) and article reporting "Pat Pointer - Vice President of Business Development". ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 15:01, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • • • ЭLСОВВОLД please help me understand how this article fails WP:CORP. The guideline states Non-commercial: "Organizations are usually notable if the scope of activities are national or international in scale and information can be verified by sources that are reliable and independent of the organization. In other words, they satisfy the primary criterion above."" ARC Diversified is a Non profit / Non-commercialorganization. The company's focus is the people, as referenced in the United States Congressional record. As far as CIO, the article is written in a fair and balanced format. All aspects of the company are plainly stated and referenced. "Sometimes you gotta toot your horn" -Dolly Parton. Please help me understand so I can make this and other pieces better. (Pnpointer (talk) 18:25, 30 May 2008 (UTC))[reply]

• Delete: fails WP:N. I couldn't find any reliable sources for its "Granny Bunt" brand either.  Ravenswing  15:05, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – the company has met the Notability requirements with the statement:"…is the first non-profit agency in the country to operate a USDA approved (PL No. 47-011-02).”” This is proven by the attached reference from DLA (Defense Logistics Agency a division of the Department of Defense) as shown here [1]. I inline cited the article and added the DLA piece to the reference list. ShoesssS ^Talk 15:31, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's not notability, that's importance (a distinct difference, articulated by, for example, CSD#A7). Notability on Wikipedia is not a common language term, but a defined term where the definition is "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject". This company does not have significant coverage as defined and required by WP:N. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 15:35, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – I believe you are looking at the general guideline with regards to Notability. And you are right, you could make a case of non-notability. However, if you look at the classification, with regards to Organizations, as shown here [2], I believe that ARC meets these requirements. Thanks. ShoesssS ^Talk 17:33, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Weakly, perhaps, but CORP is a guideline and, thus, subordinate to WP:N, a policy. Without passing WP:N, I'd argue CORP considerations are moot. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 17:42, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• When did WP:N get promoted to policy? It still claims to be guildeline -- just like all the context-specific elaborations such as wP:CORP. —Quasirandom (talk) 18:18, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• My mistake; still assert failure to meet either, however. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 18:56, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, weakly. Given the claims made in the article for the business's work with the disabled, you would think that some kind of reliable sources would exist covering that aspect. None are cited. This is a brick and mortar business making consumer goods: again, you'd expect this to generate some coverage, none is in the article. Google News seems not to have heard of them, though. Conflict of interest skews the article obviously; one local business newspaper source found in general Google mentions a bankruptcy that goes unmentioned in the article in chief. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:36, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - The article has been edited since then to mention the bankruptcy. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 21:04, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Noteability to include: 1.) First non-profit agency in the country to operate a USDA approved facility for the production of manufactured goods sold to the feeding programs of the US Government and private industry.; 2.) five (5) verifiable objective references, 3.) one (1) held trademark per USPTO; 4.) google news articles; 5.) award from US Government organization abilityone.gov....the article has merit, please pardon my weak editingPnpointer (talk) 18:54, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notability is not established. Notability requires "Significant coverage [which] means that sources address the subject directly in detail". These are the current references:
    • http://tarr.uspto.gov/servlet/tarr?regser=serial&entry=78642422 - Patent and trademark entry. No relevance to importance or notability - any firm and/or person can registry for such protection. Does not address the subject directly in detail.
    • http://www.arcdiversified.com/ - Website of the company; not reliable secondary or third party source.
    • http://www.abilityone.gov/JWOD/about_us/Halloffame/2006_NISH_usdane_award.pdf - Article is about Toni Stockton; company is mentioned in passing as her place of employment. Does not address the subject directly in detail.
    • http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=36033 - No mention of the company.
    • http://www.acb.org/resolutions/res68.html - No mention of the company.
    • http://www.jwod.gov/jwod/about_us/about_us.html - No mention of the company.
    • http://www.abilityone.gov/JWOD/about_us/ARC-Diversified.html - This source is fine.
    • http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=arc+diversified+cookeville&btnG=Search+Archives&ie=UTF-8&oe=utf-8&um=1 - A Google search is not a valid source; what article is being used?
    • http://blog.oregonlive.com/oregonianspecial/2006/11/congress_aims_to_fix_job_progr.html - Blog and no mention of the company in detail; redundant to source below.
    • http://www.herald-citizen.com/index.cfm?event=news.view&id=8A4BB623-19B9-E2E2-67EBE1729061103B - Does not address the subject directly in detail.
  • One source covering the topic in detail is not enough to establish notability. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 19:14, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • [http://gordon.house.gov/pressarchives/2004/July/arcfedfoodcontract20july04a.shtml - United States Congressman Bart Gordon
    • ^ [http://gordon.house.gov/pressarchives/2004/July/arcfedfoodcontract20july04a.shtml United States Congressman Bart Gordon```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pnpointer (talk • contribs) 18:29, 22 May 2008
• Keep Agree with the keeps above that being the first non-profit to operate such a facility establishes notability. Also, this article is very new, so giving it some more time might help editors find additional sources. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 23:02, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:49, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, fails WP:CORP. None of the references provided are reliable, significant and independent of the source. News search finds nothing. If the authors want to keep this, find two such sources to show notability, and if they can show notability, I will change my vote. Arsenikk ^(talk) 00:27, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • • http://www.abilityone.gov/JWOD/about_us/ARC-Diversified.html - us government entity
    • http://gordon.house.gov/pressarchives/2004/July/arcfedfoodcontract20july04a.shtml - us congressman
    • Can we agree on these two?(Pnpointer (talk) 01:16, 23 May 2008 (UTC))[reply]

  And this one [3]. DLA is an independent government agency under the command of the Department of Defense.

  The third is hosted by the company; how can we ensure it is being accurately represented? How can we ensure ARC has rights to host it? We need to source directly to the reference itself. The other two are government sites. Isn't it curious that not even references from local newspapers or magazines have been provided? ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 12:37, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Recent newspaper articles have been provided. In this age for-profit newspapers, archived articles (older than 10 years) have rights and costs. They can't just be pulled up and broadcast on the web. Is the newspaper the authority of notability? Are you saying a congressman and Abilityone isn't good enough? (Pnpointer (talk) 12:55, 23 May 2008 (UTC))[reply]

I am sorry if I am misreading your comment, could you clarify? To me it comes across as you saying that the information is being fabricated by Pnpointer and myself. Thanks ShoesssS ^Talk 13:14, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ARC is hosting only the front cover and page 36. I haven't said, nor do I believe, that this information has been fabricated. The issue is about accurate representation; is information being cherry picked? What's in the other (at least) 35 pages? Where is confirmation that ARC has rights to post this information or proof it's PD? We can't knowingly link to copyvios. The recent newspaper articles do not discuss the company directly and/or in detail. There's no requirement, by the way, that sources can be obtained gratis. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 14:21, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey – Thanks for clearing that-up. Let me address your concerns. First, the information is free use. If you go to DLA website, as shown here [4] you will notice that the statement states “Information presented is considered public information and may be distributed or copied unless otherwise specified. Use of appropriate byline/photo/image credits is requested. “In other words ARC can post on there website. And this information can be verified by following the policy thread from the “Loglines” website as shown here [5]. So there is no problem with regards to copyright or usage. Regarding LOGLINES, I understand your concern that they are not a well-know publication. However, in the industry, primarily Defense Industry, they are extremely well respected – creditable - and reliable. As much as any Government agency can be :-). Hope this clears up the use of the information. Thanks. ShoesssS ^Talk 15:09, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep — I agree with the arguments for notability above. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 21:19, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, seems notable. Stifle (talk) 08:57, 28 May 2008 (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.