Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daewoo Express

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. postdlf (talk) 04:32, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Daewoo Express

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

While there are mentions of this company, it fails WP:CORPDEPTH and ultimately WP:GNG as there is not WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS. Most of the mentions are also from press releases. FoolMeOnce2Times (talk) 19:47, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

'Comment I declined a speedy A7 on it, but I'm not sure one way or another about notability. The requirements to pass pseedy are much less demanding that to meet WP:N. DGG ( talk ) 21:17, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. First gnews hit: a 450-word article in a foreign newspaper, exclusively about this company [1]. Here ~~are a couple of paragraphs~~is a mention in a Pakistani national newspaper [2]; here's a paragraph from the New York Times [3]. I hazard that there are plenty of sources in Urdu, too: this does seem to be quite a significant company in Pakistan. Dricherby (talk) 21:24, 19 June 2013 (UTC) Corrected Dricherby (talk) 23:08, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The first link talks about the company, but primarily focuses on the parent company that was once in Korea. This could be considered a references towards notability but it does not satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH in my opinion as depth of coverage states "A single independent source is almost never sufficient for demonstrating the notability of an organization." Also, the 2nd link is 1 sentence that states "However, Premier Bus Service and Daewoo Express had set a new trend in the transport sector by hiring educated staff so that people especially women could feel safe while travelling." This is hardly significant coverage as it is a one-liner and cannot be used towards WP:GNG. The 3rd may be from the New York Times, but it simply states that their buses are painted a different color than traditional buses in Pakistan. Not sure that these would satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH. Would be happy to withdraw the nomination if you can find WP:SIGCOV. Unfortunately, I have been unable to do so. --FoolMeOnce2Times (talk) 22:03, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I realise I'd misread the second link, thinking that the whole of the last two paragraphs was about Daewoo Bus. But I disagree about the Korean source: other than a brief mention of the parent group towards the top of the article, almost the whole of the rest is about the Pakistani bus company. I also disagree about the third source: it does not "simply state that their busses are painted a different colour". It also says that their pricing is aimed at the middle-class market and that, in contrast to other bus companies, it has air-conditioned buses that run on time. Dricherby (talk) 23:08, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Conceding that the 1st source would go towards notability, how would the 3rd source meet WP:CORPDEPTH? I guess I am just not seeing how the two references we are talking about would amount to WP:SIGCOV. --FoolMeOnce2Times (talk) 00:41, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:10, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:11, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:11, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Agreed with Dricherby. Quite notable article and it should be kept. Fai zan 07:57, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know of any sources in Urdu that might cement notability? Just agreeing with other contributors at AfD doesn't carry a lot of weight. Dricherby (talk) 10:13, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree about agreeing without an argument about why. I am the nominator but would be happy to withdraw such if there are references that can be presented that show WP:CORPDEPTH. I am willing to bet there is something in a language other than English which would be acceptable to support WP:GNG if someone is willing to find them. --FoolMeOnce2Times (talk) 17:21, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how much weight your agreement with me about Faizan's agreement with me carries. :-D Dricherby (talk) 19:38, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely none. Pointing out to Faizan that this is a consensus, note a vote count. Also, I am the type of person who will change my vote if there is an argument that persuades me, but simply stating that it is notable without providing a reason doesn't carry much weight in a deletion discussion. At this point, the only reference that I feel would go towards notability is the first one you mentioned. I would love to see additional, even if they are in a foreign language. --FoolMeOnce2Times (talk) 18:46, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 18:52, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 20:35, 3 July 2013 (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.