Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coit Cleaners (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:39, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Coit Cleaners
AfDs for this article:


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

As far as I can tell there really is no notability here--the company exists, this is true, but seems to not be anything special, and any notability seems derived from a lawsuit filed in 1993 and settled in 2003. I don't think they meet NCORP.

Update: I just noticed this is the second nomination--see Articles for deletion/Coit Cleaners (really a third--deep dive into Wikipedia history!). But our standards for discussing deletion have changed a bit, and we should now require evidence of notability rather than just claims of notability, which is what we find in those two discussions from 2005. Drmies (talk) 15:38, 25 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep OPs right, stuff DID change from 2005, specifically the notability guidelines regarding companies. Now all wikipedians need to do to make sure the article on their favorite establishment is kept is have at least ONE non-local reliable source. And would ya look at that! None other than Bob Vila's website ranked it in their top 3 couch cleaning services. There, all you need now is a couple of more reliable sources, local included (Like this one about their operations in Kentucky) and you're good to go! Now I'm wondering if OP did any sort of WP:BEFORE...Americanfreedom (talk) 17:58, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Ahem. Bob Vila is a TV host. His website is not a reliable secondary source. I've never been very impressed with Bizjournals.com, but OK, there's an article then. Anyway, the idea that one hit on a TV host's website and an article in a business journal is enough is kind of silly. Drmies (talk) 21:47, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and California.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:34, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete - I have fond memories of watching Bob Vila, but his website is questionable in terms of establishing notability. For one thing, Mr. Vila certainly did not write that article, a freelance writer did. Second, the BobVila.com website earns a commission on the listed cleaners, so there is a conflict of interest there, as defined by WP:IIS: "Independent sources have...no conflicts of interest (there is no potential for personal, financial, or political gain to be made from the existence of the publication)" It's not an independent reliable source. While this BizJournal article does go into some detail about COIT, what's there is honestly trivial because to be clear, the article is about "COIT Kentuckiana franchisee Krish Inc." not about COIT itself. Americanfreedom's comment about only needing one source is inaccurate, as WP:GNG requires multiple reliable third-party sources, and even if you were to include BizJournal piece (which we shouldn't, as parent notability should be established independently), that's still just one article, and that's not sufficient for an article on Wikipedia. With that in mind, and with what I was able to find online, there are no reliable third-party sources that have significant coverage of the article's subject; it fails WP:GNG. - Aoidh (talk) 23:41, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete sources aren't really useful. Bob Vila is 75 or so, I really don't think he's active on his website and rating companies; likely people running it and paying to use his name. Oaktree b (talk) 00:08, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete, per abouve. Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 15:33, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete, agree with all arguments for deletion. It comes down to not having enough citations. Samanthany (talk) 00:55, 27 August 2022 (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.