Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arpin Group


 * 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. Spartaz Humbug! 16:41, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Arpin Group

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

This page should be deleted because we are unable to remove the COI box. Arpin Group would like this page deleted from Wikipedia.
 * Delete because it seems to be a copyright violation. The sources cited seem to be press releases by the company so notability also not established.Steve Dufour (talk) 19:00, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Silver  seren C 20:06, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment I have tagged this article for rescue. Silver  seren C 20:06, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep I have added about ten sources to the bottom from reliable newspapers. It seems to me that the group itself is notable, but that the article needs to be completely rewritten to get rid of any COI conflicts or possible copyright concerns. However, this is possible with the sources i've placed in the article. Silver  seren C 20:06, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak delete due to a combination of the subject's borderline notability (many of the sources added read like press releases and none address the subject in any depth) and because the subject and author has asked us to delete it. If the subject was clearly notable the article should be kept and rewritten, but the sources aren't screaming notability.  Them  From  Space  20:48, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep'  They write an article about themselves, and when the article is marked with COI, just as it ought to be,  they want it deleted. If they were in fact non-notable, it is good that they realized it, but they seem a long established firm with a major national presence. As an alternative, delete and let somebody else start over.  DGG ( talk ) 03:04, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete without prejudice/rewrite. Stifle (talk) 08:55, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Neutral(see below). Delete, possibly speedy (WP:G11, WP:G12). Promotional WP:COPYVIO of, , . No salvageable content. — Rankiri (talk) 20:33, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Did you even look at the sources? I completely agree that the article should be completely rewritten, but we're trying to establish if it is notable or not. Everything else can be done after this. Silver  seren C 21:18, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not about sources. The entire page is one big copyright violation. However, if you insist, two of the five references are unavailable and the other three are all press releases issued by the company. — Rankiri (talk) 21:30, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I meant these:
 * "Arpin Group Wins Paragon Moving Supplier of the Year Award" - BusinessWire
 * "Arpin named Moving Supplier of Year" - PBN
 * "Arpin Group Military Operations Center to Centralize Quality Control" - RISMedia
 * "Arpin opens first office in Canada" - Providence Business Media
 * "Arpin Group opens first office in Germany" - Providence Business News
 * "1st annual e-waste fest to be held at Arpin Group" - Warwick Beacon
 * "Arpin honored as BP Vendor of the Year" - Providence Business News
 * "Arpin wins top service ranking from Parsifal" - PBN
 * "Festival collects more than 23,000 pounds of waste" - Johnston Sun Rise
 * "Preston, Utopia officials meet with state DOT representatives" - The Day
 * "Arpin International Group Receives Two Weichert Awards for Customer Satisfaction" - News Blaze
 * "Natasza Przybylska Joins Arpin International Group in Ireland as Multilingual Move Coordinator" - EON
 * They have a lot of coverage. Silver  seren C 21:59, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Let me put it this way: I won't make any definitive statements about the company's notability since I think that the article should be deleted for a completely unrelated reason. — Rankiri (talk) 22:10, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * There, I rewrote the entire thing. Can you look at the sources now? Silver  seren C 23:00, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Most of these are also press releases. BusinessWire, Providence Business Media (PBN), News Blaze and EON don't provide any independent coverage. The Day's single mention of the group is trivial and insufficient. Johnston Sun Rise and Warwick Beacon contain local "folk festival and e-waste recycling event" announcements for Warwick, Rhode Island. Their coverage of the company is indirect and insufficient. The only source that's left is and it also reads like a press release: "designed to reward "best value" service providers with more business" . . ."its goal is to provide unprecedented customer service" . . . "offices will use a "Best Value" approach that focuses on performance", etc. — Rankiri (talk) 12:21, 10 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment. I haven't looked into notability yet, but the article is not a copyright violation. Don't people even look at article talk pages before commenting at AfD? Phil Bridger (talk) 10:07, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I always do, but in this case I was fooled by the empty WP:NAVPOP popup. Although I'm not at all convinced that the company can pass WP:CORP, I'm changing my earlier vote to neutral. — Rankiri (talk) 12:21, 10 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep I agree with Silver Seren, the sources look fine. Not every company has their press releases published even, only the notable ones.   D r e a m Focus  07:25, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Sorry, Silverseren, I know you have worked hard to rescue this article, but the notability just isn't there. The only published media that even mentions this company is the Providence Business Journal, whose brief items are clearly press-release-driven. The PBJ is pretty much obligated to publish everything they get about a hometown company, and if you look at the paper's website, most of its stories are about companies which are not notable on a national level. The company does have a listing at Business Week Online, but it is exactly that, a listing - not coverage. And DreamFocus, when you say "not every company has their press releases published," I don't know what you are basing that on, but this company does NOT have its press releases "published". They are reproduced, verbatim, on websites. --MelanieN (talk) 03:50, 15 April 2010 (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.