Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Big Ass Solutions


 * 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. Closing a few hours early but that shouldn't be controversial due to there being obvious consensus to keep. AfD is not cleanup and therefore the promotional tone can be fixed by copy editing. The references that have been uncovered throughout this discussion will help the future writers of this article. (non-admin closure)  Anarchyte  ( work  &#124;  talk )   12:15, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Big Ass Solutions

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

At best, still advertorial and the listed sources are simply advertorial, press releases and other trivial and unconvincing coverage; The Economist article itself is only about the company's funding and finances. SwisterTwister  talk  18:12, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:36, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. North America1000 22:14, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America1000 22:15, 2 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep I have found some non-trivial coverage in the Lexington Herald-Leader archives in Newsbank. Those will be paywalled, unfortunately. I have access through my local library. Seems like they've won several awards and understandably, generated some controversy with their name. I may not be able to add this information soon, but I'll try. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 15:07, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

 References
 * Keep – Promotional tone can be addressed by copy editing the article, such as, for example, by reducing the length of the Awards and recognition section. Passes WP:CORPDEPTH per a review of available sources. Source examples include, but are not limited to, those listed below. North America1000 04:07, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * CNN
 * Bloomberg
 * Fortune
 * Lexington Herald-Leader
 * Lexington Herald-Leader
 * UnSelling: The New Customer Experience. Chapter 24. pp. 95-98.
 * Forbes
 * Forbes (The first half of the article discusses the company)
 * CNET
 * CNET
 * CNET
 * Rural Builders Buyers' Guide. American Farm Building Services.
 * Lexington Herald-Leader
 * Forbes
 * Comment -- there's something to be said about the name and the story of small tenacious entrepreneur building a successful company, but the tone is advertorial: "worked on the fans with his father"; "refused to lay off workers during the Great Recession" (with link); etc. I believe the article should be significantly pruned and I'm not sure what would be left. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:46, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep The question is notability of the subject, not whether the article is written in an encyclopedic tone (if it has to be whittled down to a stub, so be it). Links provided by Northamerica1000 (although some are broken) indicate pretty clearly that the subject is notable per WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. Stevie is the man!  Talk • Work 11:05, 9 August 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.