Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Claims Advisory 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 delete. The arguments that the subject has not received significant coverage in reliable sources have not been countered. Sources showing that the company exists and is licenced to trade do not satisfy the general notability guideline.Michig (talk) 08:31, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Claims Advisory Group

 * – ( View AfD View log )

No coverage in independent sources other than here, which just gives the basic company information. Googling the company returns their own website and lots of forum threads complaining about cold-calling. The whole article reads like an advertisement, and I would guess that it was written by someone within the company Mahahahaneapneap (talk) 02:24, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 14:05, 4 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete:Looks like an WP:Vanispamcruftisement, lacks any coverage in reliable sources to pass WP:GNG. Mattg82 (talk) 03:08, 5 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep: This is not an article by the company, the author is not acting on behalf of the company, but did use the company to reclaim PPI, which brought about awareness of the services of such companies. Dispute that this is a WP:Vanispamcruftisement, but understand why this appears so. The article has been amended to reference other PPI companies and now references the claims management company WP page. It also now references the Claims Management Services Regulator. It seems to pass WP:GNG as the reliable sources shows the company to be licensed by a UK Government Department licensing them to trade. Will research for more reliable sources to add.
 * Unsure why cold calling reference is relevant as this is a sales technique it isn't referenced within the article as it is irrelevant to the reclaiming of PPI within the financial services industry and doesn't affect the notability of the page. (Wbay Lass (talk) 13:04, 9 January 2012 (UTC))
 * The comment about cold calling is relevant because it's practically the only information about them on Google. According to WP:CORP, "A company (...) is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject." That is not the case for this particular company. Mahahahaneapneap (talk) 23:36, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Unsure how Google is a reliable source, as it searches secondary sources but can't be counted as one. The article as previously stated includes secondary sources. The discussion around Binding RFCs discusses more peoples involvement wherever page disputes occur and this is proposed here. Tempting not to add comments to the Banks page for charging PPI illegally, but that would be personal opinion, however backed up by Google. (Wbay Lass (talk)) —Preceding undated comment added 00:12, 20 January 2012 (UTC).


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Wifione  Message 22:08, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talk about my edits? 08:18, 19 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete The independent references in the article do not mention the company at all or even the word "claims" in most cases. Only ref is a directory listing. Google initially seems to show a lot of hits but following through they peter out at under 300. noq (talk) 00:48, 20 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - Lacks the coverage needed to etablish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 17:28, 24 January 2012 (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.