Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bravo Location Rentals


 * 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. —  Aitias  // discussion 00:26, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Bravo Location Rentals

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Delete appears to fail WP:CORP, reads like an advertisement, but seems little different than any other party supplies rental place. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:49, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Any suggestions would be appreciated for this article not to be deleted. Thank you talk BruB (talk) 18:05, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Sourced, referenced, and seems to be a reasonably notable company in an albeit specialised field. I've removed a bit of PR fluff, but on the whole it seems to just be a neutral description of the company. (Someone spamming a product which solely serves a French-speaking area on the English Wikipedia seems to have missed one of the basic rules of spamming, anyway). "There are other companies which offer the same service and we don't have articles on those" – which, if I'm reading it right, is the thrust of the nomination – isn't a relevant argument; that could be said for virtually any company short of Virgin Galactic. What matters is whether this particular company does anything to distinguish itself from others offering the same service, and there seems to be enough coverage, awards etc cited (taking those on good faith – I haven't checked them out) to weakly accept that. –  iride scent  20:59, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions.  --  Double Blue  (talk) 16:00, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per Iridescent. Majoreditor (talk) 01:08, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:CORP by a good margin. Badly fails the key criteria: significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject.  Actually looking at the sources, one is a fairly brief tangential mention alongside other companies in a trade magazine, and the other is a silver award for their website design in a web award given to the websites of rental companies.  Google news search for all time returns one hit, the previously mentioned special events mag.  The Canadian Rental Service Magazine (no web link available) does not appear to be sufficiently independent - it is a promotion and membership organization for Canadian rental companies.  I think coverage in a magazine of a niche organization where subject is a paying member fails to be an independent source. Phil153 (talk) 05:45, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete As Phil153 says, this company misses WP:CORP. significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, none of the sources appear to be significant coverage, nor independant of the company if it pays membership. --Ged UK (talk) 08:36, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. To be honest, this is a borderline speedy. We're all aware that trade magazines are neither indicators of notability nor reliable secondary sources, as they are not "independent of the subject". The same thing applies to awards from trade associations. yandman  16:53, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Pretty blatant spam. --Sloane (talk) 17:09, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Well I did this article, I'm jsut an employee of the place but seem to have a conflict of interest. I only thought it was a good place to show the history of the Company.
 * Delete. As others have noted, this easily fails WP:CORP. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 20:20, 24 February 2009 (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.