Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ServiceMagic (2nd nomination)

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. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:17, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ServiceMagic

Article on a small company. The are few claims (and little evidence) of impact, and only one local news source (the others are press releases). This was nominated for deletion two years ago, but I'm not sure I understand the reasoning behind its being kept then. CalendarWatcher (talk) 23:21, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It was kept then as it should be now because it fulfils WP:N and WP:CORP. It has been sourced. TaintedZebra (talk) 01:55, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which aspects of notability criteria does it fulfil? It certainly doesn't comply with sourcing requirements, what with said sources being one local newspaper story and a few press releases. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 11:41, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It was kept the last time it was nominated and is a notable company. I respectfully disagree with the claims that this is an article on a "small company." They are one of IACs largest, most profitable companies and provide a service to millions of homeowners. As an attempt to alleviate any doubt that may occur from the claims of this nomination, I have updated the article with additional facts and more authoritative sources. Spidermidget (talk) 08:11, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'They are one of IACs largest, most profitable companies and provide a service to millions of homeowners. ' ^{[citation needed]}. Those are strong claims not borne out by any reliable sources (and no, press releases don't count). --CalendarWatcher (talk) 11:41, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here are more notable sources: SEC Filing showing $93 million in revenue for 2007, listed on INC 500, story on NY Times, listed as #7 Real Estate web site on Inman. This should address the nominator's claims for deletion. --Spidermidget (talk) 17:29, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete although the article has sources (primary and press releases that they are). It is still basically spam which needs a significant rewrite to become encylopedic (part of the CSD). Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:54, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - in addition to the Rocky Mountain News item referenced in the article, a search on Google News reveals more results. To be sure, there are tons of press releases, but included are reports about the company in the Denver Post and Business Journal-Portland. I stopped lokking after that as this should be sufficient to establish that there is coverage about the company from independent sources satisfying notability. -- Whpq (talk) 16:40, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources. We66er (talk) 23:52, 14 September 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.