Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Global Mobility Solutions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:53, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Global Mobility Solutions

[edit]
Global Mobility Solutions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Failed Google test. I dream of horses (T) @ 18:03, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (T) @ 18:03, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (T) @ 18:03, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:12, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note- I've updated the majority of the issues noted namely, low linking to other wikipedia articles, and resolved the orphan issue. Reiterating notability in industry. Satisfies wikipedia's primary notability guidelines: Verifiable 3rd party media sources cited here and on page. Additionally under the help section for article deletion it states: "First get regular press coverage and meet Wikipedia's requirements for the subject". This has been accomplished and shown via major print and digital publications. Globalrelocation (talk) 17:16, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:PROMO advert of non-notable company, the "sources" up there and in the article are in-trade and/or press releases, no in-depth coverage in RS independent of the subject, fails WP:CORPDEPTH Kraxler (talk) 15:05, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:03, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  13:49, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I don't think many wikipedians have read the actual sources. Two of the sources are from a magazine publication which Globalrelocation gave links to PDFs for. If you read the pdfs you'll see that they are independent media publications and better yet industry studies. So valid citation. For the other cites, I think they work for newsworthy since the news publications published them, and I think the media is a better judge of newsworthy since they are the news lol. Plus article has good interlinking quality to and from lots of pages. Crp2010 (talk) 23:40, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note/Keep - is there a reason this was relisted for deletion. It looks like there wasn't enough consensus to delete so it was added again in an attempt to get a deletion result. Seems trollish. Maybe this is normal but haven't really seen this before. It was added to 6 total deletion pages without consensus until it was added again September 26th. Really doesn't seem the article has that much conflict outside delete happy users. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.106.243.191 (talk) 00:36, 29 September 2015 (UTC) — 68.106.243.191 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Comment - We would be more than happy to draft and userfy this to your userspace until it is set to be in article mainspace again. SwisterTwister talk 05:46, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I don't think that is necessary. Any issues placed on the page have been edited and resolved quickly. Why not continue to place warnings on the page and continually edit until the article meets editors strict scrutiny? That's how all of these other articles work, like relocation service, Worldwide ERC, Cartus, SIRVA or more at Wikipedia:Cleanup. There is nothing about this article that warrants immediate deletion. It provides dimension to an ill documented part of wikipedia (Relocation Industry). Let's keep the article and continue editing. I have asked other wikipedians for input on resolving complaints they held, but they would not respond after edits were made to resolve issues. I'm not an advanced user, but it is apparent that this article is being held to a level of scrutiny most others, especially in this category, are not. Globalrelocation (talk) 13:34, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - advert for unnotable company. . . Mean as custard (talk) 16:44, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, sources are all either primary, press releases, or passing mentions. Wikipedia is not a platform for advertising. Grayfell (talk) 00:13, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note - Notoriety and validity of citations has already been discussed please see the previous. A 2 year independent study by an media authority in the industry is not a passing mention. Additionally, stop removing valid interlinking in attempt to orphan the page. This page has not been deemed as spam, nor is it deleted, and so removing relevant linking is unwarranted. User:Grayfell User:Mean as custard • Globalrelocation (talk) 14:59, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Interlinking is just an attempt to confer notability on the article by associating it with more notable topics. . . Mean as custard (talk) 16:34, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
please explain to me how relocation service - an explanation of the subject matter of relocation companies, has no relation to actual relocation companies. It is not an attempt to establish association, it is an actual association. Please familiarize yourself with Wikipedias rules on see also sections: Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout you are arbitrarily removing valid additions to wikipedia articles. Globalrelocation (talk) 19:48, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The HRO Today sources list GMS as one of many companies as a passing mention. The descriptions of the company in the PDFs are clearly supplied by GMS to HRO Today, which is unusable for establishing notability.
'See also' sections generally do not include links which are already included in articles. They also should not include links to specific companies or groups without a clear indication why they are relevant. As this AFD demonstrates, a company's competitors are not automatically notable enough for articles, so selectively listing only some companies is providing flattery by association. Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion. Practically speaking, it's better to just leave other companies out of see also sections without a very good (and verifiable) reason. Belonging to a trade group doesn't establish notability, even if the trade group is notable (see WP:INHERITED). Grayfell (talk) 21:07, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
'See also' sections are the following:

"Contents: A bulleted list, preferably alphabetized, of internal links to related Wikipedia articles. The links in the "See also" section might be only indirectly related to the topic of the article because one purpose of "See also" links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics"

do not make up rules in wikipedia to serve your own opinion. The requirement is only tangential relation which is well established. I disagree with your opinion on notability. Relocation Service as well as SIRVA and Altair were all part of the same independent study and so their relation is not only tangential, it is common sense. Additionally your reference to WP:INHERITED is invalid . WP:INHERITED refers to an error made where an editor assumes their article's relationship with a given element is evidence of notoriety, usually based on opinion. See more section links have absolutely nothing to do with rules of AfD. Stop arbitrarily removing valid interlinking to other articles and stating your own opinion as the "general" consensus. An example of tangentiality with company listing in see more is the Apple page (Pixar) and many many others. Relocation Service and Relocation service companies are not only tangentially related they are common sense. Globalrelocation (talk) 21:30, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please consider the possibility that my opinion based on past experiences with Wikipedia's guidelines and culture. If you cannot assume good faith then you should not be participating in these kinds of discussions. You're right, the see more section has very little to do with this AFD, but I am directly responding to your comments to me about that problem. Pixar was funded by Steve Jobs right after he was fired from Apple, and the place to discuss that connection is Talk:Apple Inc.. Having been mentioned by an industry study does very little to establish notability. Likewise, it does not establish a "common sense" connection between two companies, especially when a dozen companies without articles were also part of that study. Grayfell (talk) 22:18, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree relocation services and relocation service companies seem totally related to me and make sense for the see also. I put them back. It looks like article is going to get deleted anyway though. don't really think it should be, but that might be bc I see these companies more than m,st. looks like cartus is gonna get deleted too lol. Crp2010 (talk) 23:50, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That link is not usable for establishing notability, as it is published by the company. It may be useful for filling in details about the companies history, (with limitations described in WP:PRIMARY) but it does nothing to address the underlying problem. Grayfell (talk) 20:41, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete. No significant sources beyond "business as usual". Staszek Lem (talk) 22:22, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note - Can we add a stub template to the article and continue to edit? There are likely valid citations that review the company history that User:crp2010 mentioned. There are articles that claim FAS created the first online Mortgage Calculator as well as the first online Community search, which was then purchased by Homestead which at the time was publicly traded... which means SEC will have record. This Global Mobility Solutions article as well as Cartus is in the very least arguably notable based on the conversation here. Let's Stub the article and continue editing. Globalrelocation (talk) 22:25, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Essentially promotional content for a seemingly non-notable firm. Carrite (talk) 23:27, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Yes, this organization has gotten a bit of coverage, and I suppose that the people involved do great work. Be that as it may, we still don't have the kind of truly significant reliable source coverage to write a meaningful article around. I agree with a lot of the above arguments. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 13:10, 4 October 2015 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Global_Mobility_Solutions&oldid=1142200657"