Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anta Plumbing


 * 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. Cunard's analysis of the sources is definitive.  DGG ( talk ) 20:54, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Anta Plumbing

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Contested PROD. Promotionally written article about a local plumbing company in Toronto with no claim to notability - having the highest number of positive reviews in 2012 on a regional ratings website does not confer notability. Sources are primary (press release and company website) or trivial mentions of the company's founder. bonadea contributions talk 08:56, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. bonadea contributions talk 16:47, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. bonadea contributions talk 16:47, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - I found it notable as per WP:CORP. The references cited therein are reliable and back up the information in the article. Aha... (talk) 10:47, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Could you be more specific, please? Which part of WP:CORP is met by this local plumbing company, and which references meet WP:RS? --bonadea contributions talk 11:35, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:31, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete per the lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. My searches for sources returned mostly press releases like this and this. There is insufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Anta Plumbing to pass Notability, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard (talk) 06:41, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Here are the sources in the article:  Anta Plumbing's CEO is a guest on the segment. This is not significant independent coverage of the company.  The company only has a passing mention: "Tanya Klein, CEO of Anta Plumbing in Toronto, recommends reverse osmosis water filters for homes and businesses to improve water quality. Reverse osmosis purifies water by forcing it through a semi-impermeable membrane that lead and other contaminants cannot pass though."  This is a press release so is not an independent source that can be used to establish notability.  The Better Business Bureau cannot be used to establish notability.  This article is from the company itself so is not an independent source.</li> </ol>Cunard (talk) 06:41, 7 January 2016 (UTC)</li></ul>
 * Delete - Currently nothing to suggest better regarding better sourcing. SwisterTwister   talk  06:54, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - There are no major issues to do with notability of the company. Some improvements or more sources pointing to the problems discussed above in the article itself if such problems exist would be helpful in imrpoving the article. Coverage by third party sites like this and this meet the WP:GNG principle. Kansiime (talk) 17:42, 11 January 2016 (UTC)


 * No, as pointed out by Cunard above, the Huffington Post "Lead Exposure Still Exists" piece (your first source) is a trivial mention which does not cover the company, it simply mentions it in passing; the BBB link (your second source) is simply a directory listing, and it cannot be used to show notability. Having a high BBB rating is not the same as being notable. --bonadea contributions talk 18:03, 11 January 2016 (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.