Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GENCO Supply Chain 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 delete. W.marsh 19:22, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

GENCO Supply Chain Solutions

 * NN Company (from website: privately held, non asset based)--Saganaki- 12:46, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep This company follows WP:CORP quite handily.  Just a casual search of Google News brings up a slew of articles about this company from reliable sources.    The article does however need some serious Wikifycation --Marriedtofilm 03:11, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 16:44, 16 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete WP:CORP States multiple NON-TRIVIAL published works. All of those links certianly appear to not only be trivial, but just reprints of press releases from the company.  Vic sinclair 00:14, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment The Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, Columbus Ledger-Enquirer are Pittsburgh Tribune-Review are all TRIVIAL?? That and your  "press release" accusation of those newpapers are reporting with bias and not in good-faith (all the articles credit a reporter, by the way) appears to be a direct violation of WP:NPOV. --Marriedtofilm 00:32, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * CommentCorrection where correction is due. Most don't credit reporters. But still everything else stands. --Marriedtofilm 01:05, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I think what Vic Sinclair is trying to say is that the news articles are reprints of press releases, a common-enough occurance in newspapers by the way, not because they are biased but because they republish chunks of well-written press releases when they need to find filler articles in a hurry. When they do this they will not put a reporter's name next to the story as you've seen. I agree that the newspapers are not trivial but the fact that they are not national papers or major business papers coupled with the fact that the articles have no real depth suggest they are not enough to justify GENCO's inclusion. Strong Delete. --Saganaki- 01:10, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * CommentUnless an article in a respected newspaper is acknowledged as a press release and there is an accusation that it is, that is an accusation not in good faith. Non-national newspapers are allowed under WP:CORP.  Besides, one of them is a reprint of an Associated Press (non-press release) article and the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review has a reputation of investigative reporting. --Marriedtofilm 01:28, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment In my view its not an accusation of bad faith, but that's just my view and I'm sure the user can speak for himself. As for the debate regarding deletion, my proposal stems from the fact that we have a badly written article, lack of sourcing, POV, etc and perhaps we can agree - marginal media coverage at best. (Note that I am making no assumptions about the quality of any of these new sources, but they all, associated press included, republish press release chunks at some time.) That's why I think its simply a company I would not expect to read about in an enclopedia.Saganaki- 01:37, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I agree it's a lousy article that DOES look like a press release. I'm just going by whether the company qulifies for an article (per nomination) and if it stays (not likley it seems), it needs a re-write. --Marriedtofilm 01:42, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 *  AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.  Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Krakatoa  Katie  04:52, 26 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Vehement delete. So they're a logistics solutions provider?  I'd like three with anchovies, please.  If you can't describe what your business does in plain English, and write this sort of bollocks instead, you don't deserve an article.  The History section is better, but fails to establish notability. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:11, 26 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete I'm with Smerdis of Tlön on this one.  Nothing in the article suggests notability over any other "solutions" company and the references I've checked out seem to be insignifcant articles that do not establish much beyond the fact the company exists, which is not notable. (Incidentally, further to the above discussion on reporters using press releases:  they frequently do put thier name to them.  I have even seen a letter I wrote to a paper printed word for word with a headline and a reporter's byline.  Basically, reporters tend to laziness, and I would always be wary of accepting anything from a newspaper as verifiabilty on its own.) Emeraude 21:56, 26 October 2006 (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.