Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baltimore Transmission


 * 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. --evrik (talk) 16:18, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Baltimore Transmission

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Completely unsourced and unnotable factory. Veggies (talk) 17:09, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Veggies (talk) 17:09, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:15, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep A few hits in the Baltimore Sun about the plant closing. Seems to have been notable at the time. Oaktree b (talk) 19:29, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep Quite a bit of SIGCOV:  This plant had closed in 2019 though the article had not seen a single edit between 2015 and the AfD nomination. I'm working on a rescue of this page.  Sammi Brie  (she/her • t • c) 20:08, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * It now has 11 substantial references—that should clobber GNG. Sammi Brie  (she/her • t • c) 20:33, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 11:40, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment This is a company/organization therefore WP:NCORP guidelines apply. There are particular criteria for establishing the notability of a company. As per WP:SIRS *each* reference must meet the criteria for establishing notability - the quantity of coverage is irrelevant so long as we find a minimum of two. WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content".
 * "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. This is usually the criteria where most references fail. References cannot rely only on information provided by the company, quotations, press releases, announcements, interviews fail ORGIND. Whatever is left over must also meet CORPDEPTH.
 * None of the references provided by appear to be anything other than regurgitated company announcements or press releases. For example, the reference from the Star is a copy of this Vindactor article published the previous day and which is a Press Release. Similarly, the Baltimore Sun reference is similar to a number of other references (e.g. this published a day earlier) and is also based on a company announcement and information provided during a phone call with GM's CEO. Finally the last Baltimore Sun reference has no in-depth information on the company, it is an article based on information provided by "sources" and "company officials" pre-announcing the upcoming expected announcement that the factory would be built - fails CORPDEPTH and probably ORGIND. I've done a search myself and there are a lot of references but none meet CORPDEPTH so far. Right now I'm on a Delete but perhaps someone (or me) will turn up some references that meet NCORP.  HighKing++ 20:36, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 14:04, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. This article appears to be about a building, not a for-profit corporation; WP:NCORP is not the relevant notability guideline. I wholeheartedly agree with that this is a clear WP:GNG pass based upon the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Likewise, this passes WP:NBUILDING, since significant in-depth coverage by reliable, third-party sources is well-established. The article passes the relevant notability guidelines and the nominator's statement that the article is wholly unsourced is no longer true given subsequent edits to the article. There is no persuasive policy-based reason to delete the article, while there are policy-based reasons to keep it. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 05:02, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Keep, as per WP:HEY which demonstrated that WP:GNG is met. Flibirigit (talk) 16:35, 5 June 2022 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it.</b> 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.