Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Labor Finders

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. Sandstein 13:34, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Labor Finders

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:CORPDEPTH due to lack of substantial independent coverage. The sources appear to be limited to directory listings, routine announcements and interviews by the company's staff. Rentier (talk) 22:55, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I see the Reuters source (11) and Wall Street Journal source (10), are non-local and represent good third-party coverage. There are over 200 franchise locations used heavily in the construction industry, so it’s not like this is a mom and pop shop; it’s a huge national enterprise/franchise. Other sources are in-depth if local (1, 13). Seems notable to me, though you are correct that some sources are less assertiv in terms of quantifying notability. Very visible American company. Constructo (talk) 23:29, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1, 11 and 13 are not intellectually independent from the company and therefore fail WP:ORGIND. That leaves 10 which alone is insufficient to satisfy WP:NCORP, WP:CORPDEPTH. The reference numbers are based on version 814107987. Rentier (talk) 20:04, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Rentier: Can you elaborate on "not intellectually independent"? Usually we give Reuters a whole lot of RS weight, why not here? ☆ Bri (talk) 21:12, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Bri: I was referring to the fact that the article is an interview (which leaves at most a four-sentence introduction of independent coverage) and a result of the company's PR effort. As their PR manager states on Linkedin: I have had PR / media placements in some of the following media outlets: New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, The NY Daily News, REUTERS [1]. Rentier (talk) 21:37, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh wow. I didn't expect that ☆ Bri (talk) 21:40, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 23:38, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 23:38, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:10, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nominator. Insufficient sources that are not interviews or paid advertorial. Wikipedia is not a venue for another paid-for media placement. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:06, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Fails WP:NCORP / WP:CORPDEPTH: online.wsj.com is not about the company but about tips for financial planning, and Reuters is an interview:

"Reuters.com spoke with President and CEO Jeffrey Burnett about the company’s outlook for industrial staffing in the recessionary economy." Etc.

Such sources are not suitable for establishing notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:51, 20 December 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.