Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comfort Keepers


 * 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 no consensus. Three weeks in and we have no consensus either way. No prejudice against another AfD but if everyone could stick to discussing notability and leave out the accusations the discussion would likely be more useful. Michig (talk) 07:00, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Comfort Keepers

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Frankly I consider this G11 material and I would've tagged as such, but it may be removed so here we are; my searches have found nothing at all actually convincing regarding actual substantial and convincing coverage and overall there's nothing minimally suggesting better. SwisterTwister  talk  04:28, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  04:29, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  04:29, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:26, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:29, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

 References
 * Keep Leaning Keep – Comes across as meeting WP:CORPDEPTH. Some sources are paywalled, so cannot gauge the depth of coverage for these. The minor promotional tone can be addressed by copy editing the article. Below are some sources. North America1000 06:47, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Historic Shawnee County. p. 90.
 * The Spokesman-Review
 * The Sun.
 * Northeast Pennsylvania Business Journal.
 * Press of Atlantic City.
 * The Virginian-Pilot.
 * Journal of Business.
 * The Washington Times.
 * Daily Herald.
 * Knight Ridder/Tribune.
 * The Beacon News.
 * Knight Ridder/Tribune.
 * Knight Ridder/Tribune.
 * Knight Ridder/Tribune.
 * Knight Ridder/Tribune.
 * Knight Ridder/Tribune.
 * Press of Atlantic City.
 * "Comfort Keepers franchise here sees rebound in demand". Journal of Business.
 * "A Closer Look at Franchised Home Care". Aspen Publishers. 1084-8223. . Quote: "... Australia, and Ireland providing caregivers to help seniors stay in their homes. Comfort Keepers In 1997, Kristina Clum was employed by Mercy Medical Home Health Care. ... Comfort Keepers fulfills those needs. Comfort Keepers was founded in March 1998. ..."
 * "Comfort Keepers to open 10 Irish offices". RTÉ News. (short article)
 * "A Closer Look at Franchised Home Care". Aspen Publishers. 1084-8223. . Quote: "... Australia, and Ireland providing caregivers to help seniors stay in their homes. Comfort Keepers In 1997, Kristina Clum was employed by Mercy Medical Home Health Care. ... Comfort Keepers fulfills those needs. Comfort Keepers was founded in March 1998. ..."
 * "Comfort Keepers to open 10 Irish offices". RTÉ News. (short article)
 * "Comfort Keepers to open 10 Irish offices". RTÉ News. (short article)
 * Comment - Analyzing these sources once again, not only found simply local news sources talking about their own local businesses, but these have such blatant passing mentions such as for franchising and how someone apparently opened a store. Even the listed awards at the article's section suggests, that while it may be somewhat known to local people, there's still not the levels of substance needed for an actually convincing article. Any "improvements" to the article's advert tone would basically remove everything because everything is still advert-toned beyond fixing. As a note, the current sources themselves show nothing actually substantial regarding coverage, they simply consist of either primary, sources, PR or other trivial links. As shown, the article equally also focuses with franchising.... SwisterTwister   talk  07:20, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * So, you don't think the company meets WP:CORPDEPTH. Note that the articles I posted above are bylined news articles written by staff writers that have been published in independent, reliable sources. How can you discern that all of the paywalled sources only provide supposed "passing mentions"? I find the notion of the article being "advert-toned beyond fixing" to be a gross, almost humorous over-exaggeration; it could easily be copy edited, which would take me about five minutes. However, I will wait, because what's the point in copy editing an article that may end up being deleted? North America1000 07:24, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Although I may not be able to see all of the listed locked contents, everything listed as is gives enough to show it's simply local coverage including about local owners and franchises; regardless of whether the source is bylined news and the staff authors, that's still not any better coverage than what it is currently, local coverage about local businesses. By advert-toned beyond fixing, I mean that there's still no actual better substance aside from everything I have said and noted. Anything that is simply local news beginning with information about local owners and franchises is unlikely going to be largely about in-depth company coverage especially if it's only a local newspaper, which has no particular interest with largely in-depth coverage, instead simply local information for local news watchers. Simply to note also, the Gainesville local news article is exactly that, about a local event and how it involved the company; also, the Irish news source is simply about opening local offices overseas which can be said about any other company with overseas employees and offices; it shows it's not largely in-depth coverage the fact it's only a few mere sentences and paragraphs. SwisterTwister   talk  07:44, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

 References
 * Comment – Below are more reliable sources that provides significant coverage. More sources in addition to these are available. North America1000 08:11, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The Wall Street Journal
 * The Herald Palladium
 * Spokane Journal
 * Daily Globe
 * Comment - Those listed sources are again about local owners and franchises, not actual substantial in-depth coverage needed for a better convincing article (note the Spokane Journal even goes to talk about costs, clientele and pricing, which again, like the others, are only things local people and likely customers would want to know). Also then note the Daily Globe is not actually about the company but simply largely about 2 local owners and their careers. With that said, the Wall Street Journal is then only saying "Next Big Thing" basically meaning not yet notable. SwisterTwister   talk  18:09, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment - I made several edits to the article to remove the marketing messaging and improve leadership information. It is a legetmate company and feel it has a place on the wiki. --Anevelos (talk) 15:53, 14 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete Every one of the sources provided are testimonials, not in depth coverage. These are at best informational to give these local Francoise owners publicity, and I imagine there might even be a human interest aspect to these testimonials. It is simply publicity, there is no journalism happening here. The only source in each story are the franchise owners, which WP:CORPDEPTH warns against as a measure for notability. This is not news reporting.


 * Also, in general, it benefits the business community of each local area to have their business promoted, of which a news organization is or is a part of. It is good business for a local news organization to promote local businesses in an analogue of a news article so it may receive local business advertising dollars later.


 * Furthermore, a revealing detail is how each story is basically the same, it is just the owners of each local franchise that is different. To me this shows an engineered PR campaign by the parent company. There is no downside presented about any franchise in any story. There is only, "we started with two employees, now we have sixty". And each story is identical - just fill in the blanks for franchise owners and number of employees - and oh yeah! -- please include the inspiring circumstance that led to them to start the franchise. This is not news reporting. Finally, the Wikipedia article is little better than a blank page due to its total lack of information that would determine notability. Steve Quinn (talk) 03:08, 14 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Also, this is using Wikipedia as a promotional platform.Steve Quinn (talk) 03:15, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   15:12, 22 July 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, &mdash; Music1201  talk  03:02, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Asking for his analysis here.  SwisterTwister   talk  17:12, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment to closer: This comes across as canvassing because DGG tends to be for deletion of company- and brand-related articles. For examples, see the user's AfD Stats. North America1000 18:15, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
 * No, what's concerning, is that I've repeatedly asked you multiple times (both at your talk page and my own) to stay away from me because of your continued hounding, see WP: HOUNDING. DGG and I have repeatedly made comments about this so it basically seems like a case of hounding and WP:IDHT. As it is, I've been patient and civil with you yet noting seems to make this hounding end.  SwisterTwister   talk  19:17, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I have every right to contribute and comment in AfD discussions. I contribute a great deal to AfD discussions, I'm not going to skip over your nominations, and there is no "hounding" whatsoever. Please try to accept genuine concerns and constructive criticism for what it is, rather than taking matters personally. You don't WP:OWN AfD discussions you create, and all users are welcome to contribute. You also contribute a lot to AfD, so you should expect other users who also participate heavily as likely contributors. Inre my comment above, why do you need DGG's advice regarding this topic? North America1000 19:22, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
 * No, again, I have repeatedly asked you civil and patiently to still stay away from me and yet you continue. When you continue despite my repeated comments and you go out of your way to comment against me, that's hounding. Please, kindly stay away from me.  SwisterTwister   talk  19:24, 30 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment to closer: I have adjusted the indentation of my comment above and added addended it to read "Comment to closer", because it is a general comment. It appears that my genuine concern will not be addressed here. I have already contributed to this discussion by !voting and providing sources, yet I am being ordered to not further contribute. This is quite inappropriate. North America1000 19:27, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
 * (Repeated edit conflicts) No, again, I have repeatedly asked you civil and patiently to still stay away from me and yet you continue. When you continue despite my repeated comments and you go out of your way to comment against me, that's hounding. As an equal bride, I've even invited you to AfDs in the past where  you would comment but you would only either speak against me or criticize me, neither of which is civil, so I honestly am not sure what would resolve this (even when I've kindly asked for you to distance yourself). Please, kindly stay away from me.  SwisterTwister   talk  19:24, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Regardless of being "ordered", you still have not acknowledged the fact you will drive by my PRODs and nominations even nearly seconds after I click save, that would also be considered hounding if you're only interested to follow me. the bottom line is that I've actually you to limit and distance your constant following of me. When it starts causing me distress and overall uncomfortable state, you should honestly consider whether you are following me too closely and avidly. SwisterTwister   talk
 * I patrol the prod log routinely. You propose a lot of articles for deletion, so it's natural that I will happen upon some of yours. I estimate that the prod category was recently populated with around 60% of nominations you initiated. I will avoid communication with you if you'd like, but you have no right to order me to not contribute to AfD discussions you create whatsoever. You do not own AfD discussions, and my contributions are not toward any specific user. For example, I routinely perform deletion sorting, relistings, various commentary, !voting and discussion closures. My intent is never to make anyone uncomfortable, so I do take this to heart and will keep this in mind. However, the fact remains that you have strongly supported deletion only within this discussion, yet you are asking another user for their opinion after the fact. Sorry, but this does come across as a potentially unnecessary notification relative to the user's stance regarding many company- and brand-related articles per WP:CANVASS, that's all. North America1000 19:38, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I strongly believe simply cutting all interaction including removing or otherwise significantly changing any of my contribs would be best considering there has still been no changes at all regarding your hounding of me, thus my asking to stay away altogether. For example, DGG and I are both willing to delete articles of which  are only sources by PR and trivial mentions nd coverage....such as this article. I've also mentioned that it has seemed apparent you against my deletions simply because of the exact fact I'm a deletionist.... It is not relevant to mention who and why a delete happens if it speaks for itself. Thisbhas been said before multiple times by both of us, (but I'll say it again since it seems the message isn't getting through (WP:IDHT)), I notify DGG because he has a long history with these subjects and he has specifically asked. As mentioned earlier, I've previously invited you before but, considering everything, it seems obvious you and I cannot function together, thus my asking to stay away altogether. Note that you're the one who iniated this conversation despite it ending you would take these comments to mind, and also he only one pursuing a subject and matter I have clearly and firmly asked to end (WP:Canvass itself states that users who are willing to notifications, are welcome, and in this case, there are no concerns). Simply to note your claims that you routinely patrol PRODS, the logs show you have only removed my own nominations

.... Also, why is it that, meanwhile you're going against everything I'm saying here, you're accepting 2 articles sources by fubdingnand trivial coverage? (This needs no answer, please, it's simply a notation). SwisterTwister  talk
 * Comment Yes, ST is notifying me at my request. I used to watch every AfD, and comment on many of them, but I now have time only for selected ones because of other commitments, including rescuing AfCs on notable academics and instructing new and incompetent NPPatrolers.   I am interested in deleting   articles with primarily promotional  content, not articles on brands and companies. I have rewritten and rescued dozens of articles on companies and their executives this year, as I do every year. It's true that in my early years here I would tend to rescue every possible promotional  article where there was even a little underlying notability, but for the last 2 years or so I have increasingly realized the danger form promotionalism --once we become a vehicle for promotion, we're useless as an encyclopedia. So I only !vote keep on a promotional  article if it's really notable.   But I do not always agree with ST--I estimate I agree about half the time; for others I make no comment or make a different !vote. I think everyone knows that when I'm asked for a comment I look at things from the start, my own way. DGG ( talk ) 20:42, 30 July 2016 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) Comment to closer only: I will decline to respond to the nominator at this point, because I don't want to cause them to feel any frustration whatsoever. This is never my intention. I have stated my concerns herein about the potential for canvassing and hopefully they will be considered. I have no personal qualms about the user above, and they are taking the discussion quite personally, which is not my intention at all. This is a discussion, my concerns are genuine, and my comments are not harassing whatsoever. Also note that I do appreciate having received the eventual reply above regarding my concerns.


 * I will add that it's concerning for to have been pinged here, and then the explanation provided later by the nominator (in part) consists of, "For example, DGG and I are both willing to delete articles of which are only sources by PR and trivial mentions nd coverage". The nominator states that DGG is willing to delete these types of articles, and has requested for DGG to visit the discussion, which comes across as a potentially biased notification based upon of the nominator's and DGG's shared views. North America1000 20:57, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your reply. What is your opinion about my concerns regarding this specific notification to you that has occurred here (e.g. see my comment above). North America1000 21:03, 30 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete. Steve Quinn's analysis shows the problem. There is perhaps some notability here, but it's lost in the promotionalism. And I don't give a damn who asked me to look at an article--I look at every article or discussion anyone asks me to, though I may decide not to say anything.  DGG ( talk ) 21:09, 30 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment (to closer) – I have changed my !vote above to "leaning keep". I find this to be a bit of a borderline situation in terms of notability, and contributors to the discussion have made some salient points herein. Regarding additional commentary above, I would have raised objections regardless of the specific user that performed the aforementioned pinging in the manner it has occurred herein. It's nothing personal, it was just a concern. North America1000 21:25, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete -- this is a lot of debate for an article that consists of three paragraph. As no better sourcing has been offered during AfD, I vote delete. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:50, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep -- The parent company is Sodexo Their site and while the initial entry was way too promotional, the fluff has been removed. Maybe we put this as a stub. --Anevelos (talk) 15:30, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Even if trimmed, where is the actual notability and convincing, aside from anything simply local which also includes local advertising? SwisterTwister   talk  15:45, 2 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep The parent company Sodexo is covered at investing.businessweek.com, which in my experience has been a good indicator of wp:notability, in this case for the parent company.  Since this topic already has WP:DUE weight in the encyclopedia at Sodexo, there is no theoretical case for a WP:DEL8 deletion.  We also know from the large number of reliable sources found that the topic passes WP:GNG.  There is a theme in the AfD of the potential of this article to be used for WP:NOTPROMOTION, but no WP:NOT policies are mentioned in the nomination except what we can guess was intended by the reference to WP:G11, but G11 has been mentioned to say that it is not applicable.  Some exact words from the nomination are, "substantial...coverage", which looks like it could be related to the words "significant coverage" in WP:GNG, which would make it a WP:Notability argument.  WP:Notability, to rise to the level of WP:Deletion Policy, must rise to the level of WP:DEL8, which as already stated is not a valid deletion criteria for this topic.  There remains the issue of WP:NOTPROMOTION raised by others, and I am aware of the long-term potential for moneyed interests to undermine a volunteer organization over the long term, but at the same time it is not actually practical to write an encyclopedia article without making it useful to readers, which in this case includes those who want to sell franchises.  At an absolute worst case, WP:DEL14 here, just as with WP:DEL8 here, does not allow deletion of the topic itself from the encyclopedia, so what is left is that WP:NOTPROMOTION must be dealt with as a content issue, not a deletion issue.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:00, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment (I comment for historical purposes) - I have no plans to interact with this user above. Aside from the obvious politics commented exactly above me, I will note (for the AfD history) that this vote above is not considering how this article is still essentially an advertisement. Why keep something that is not actually convincing of anything acceptable since the listed sources are, still, again, local coverage about local businesses and their owners (I still stand by my first analysis comments), local PR including exact and full PR sources themselves and then also local business activities such as opening local offices. Since it's mentioned at that other company and this is still an advertisement (once we start accepting advertisements, this is not an encyclopedia), there's no need to keep this. I will note from the above "I am aware of the long-term potential for moneyed interests to undermine a volunteer organization over the long term, but at the same time it is not actually practical to write an encyclopedia article without making it useful to readers" which itself is acknowledging the fact this is in fact an advertisement. if this comment above is also going to mention there being enough "significance", where, in this advert article, are the actually convincing claims of notability, aside from another other company? SwisterTwister   talk  01:57, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. North America1000 04:39, 6 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.