- 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. Title ambiguity is not a valid WP:DELREASON. Concerns about promotional tone and lack of secondary sources were raised but addressed through editing. (non-admin closure) Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:37, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Trustmark (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Causes confusion with the company "Trustmark Corp." of which there's no page. Pearsejward (talk) 13:52, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 14:01, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 14:01, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 14:01, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
- Keep. Potential confusion with another company with a similar name is not a reason for deletion, but rather for renaming. The company appears to be notable, and so does the other Trustmark, a holding company for a bank. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 14:07, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
- Keep but either consider renaming to clarify which of the two companies this is, or create a stub for the other one, and a redirect at the top of each article, making readers aware of the existence of the two, and giving them an easy route from one to the other. In view of the fact both are holding companies, it might be easiest to adopt the latter. Elemimele (talk) 16:58, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
- Keep. is there some sort of hatnote for this case?Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 20:51, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
- Delete The draft about Trustmark reads like an advertisement; in addition to that, there are no references cited that are independent of the subject and reliable. If there is extensive news coverage or independent sources covering the subject, it needs to be cited in the article. Multi7001 (talk) 00:21, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
- Keep. Passes WP:NCORP and WP:SIGCOV. There are a ton of articles on and about the company in the Chicago Tribune archives (over 500 hits), some of them flattering and others critical. I added three articles, two on charitable programs and one a critical look at the company which was an early important case in the application of the Affordable Care Act. Two of those articles made the front page of the Chicago Tribune. Best.4meter4 (talk) 19:49, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
- 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.