Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GoRuck


 * 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. Editors disagree about whether the sources for the article have the independence and depth needed per WP:GNG etc. I can't decide this by fiat.  Sandstein  19:22, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

GoRuck

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Delete Moved from Draft space even though references fail the criteria for establishing notability. From WP:NCORP, Independent content, in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. The references clearly are either written by customers or participants, failing WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:SIGCOV or rely on member of the company for details, failing WP:ORGIND.  HighKing++ 16:47, 13 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep, of course, any reference can be dismissed as not independent because the person talked to a representative of the subject or participated in an activity (ie did some research). We should just outlaw all content on companies at Wikipedia - at least that would be an honest reflection of how some editors want our policy to read. Legacypac (talk) 16:55, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The guidelines are the way they are because much of the "independent" coverage is, in fact, churnalism and marketing and announcements, etc. There are many company articles that have good genuine third party independent coverage.  HighKing++ 18:00, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete The references are terrible. I'll go through them.
 * 1) Is a primary, cant be used to establish notability.
 * 2) This is a press release. It states in the newspaper, they can take adverts. You know it is an advert because it points to the company website.
 * 3) /site subdomain. It is webhost and is not Forbes. it is Non RS.
 * 4) This is a press release.
 * 5) This is a press release.
 * 6) This is a press release.
 * 7) This is a press release.
 * 8) Ref 8 I cant read due to GDPR
 * 9) Ref 9 states it is a blog. Non RS.
 * 10) Ref 10 explicitly states it is a blog. Non RS.
 * 11) Ref is genuine, a secondary report.


 * The reference out is press releases, blogs and churnalism. There is some coverage that may satisfy WP:SIGCOV for the marches.  scope_creep Talk  17:11, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * there have been a lot of recent edits - #11 is a blog now. I'm curious which you thought was genuine. ~Kvng (talk) 15:48, 14 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep Easily passes WP:GNG as there are lots more sources out there such as Time magazine. Andrew D. (talk) 17:25, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete-Fails NCORP and per SCreep. One/two quasi-optimal sources, AFAIS and the rest can be charitably described as rubbish. Bad accept. &#x222F; WBG converse 18:09, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 19:33, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 19:33, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Keep: Tearing part the arguments presented:
 * (scope_creep):
 * https://www.goruck.com/what-we-do/ is no different than providing a citation to a company's own "About us" and therefore by what I would assume is traditional behaviour allowed
 * Blanket argument that the "/site" subdomain is personal blog space does carry 1/50th of full weight. Again I reference the fact that Forbes Editors do look and feature content out of the /site subdomain.  Also I invite you to look beyond simple redlines. Notice the other work this writer has done.
 * https://www.jacksonville.com/shorelines/2016-12-30/goruck-challenges-mind-body-and-soul Again, I have to point out how clearly you did zero work in actually reading through the references provided (WP:BEFORE?) (or understand context) otherwise you would have connected the dots that a newspaper in/about Jacksonville Florida would cover a local small business in Jacksonville Florida or cover an entrepeneur who grew up in Jacksonville Foridia'
 * https://www.jacksonville.com/mandarin-st-johns/town/southside-beaches/2017-06-21/jacksonville-beach-based-goruck-launches Want to take a wild guess as to the argument? Oh yeah... JACKSONVILLE. Hint: You really should have read through to understand that many of the Jacksonville things are celebrating a Small business in the home community, but I guess you couldn't be bothered and just applied blind ruberics.
 * Your inability to access something because of GDPR is not a valid argument for deletion (and you should be ashamed)
 * https://www.al.com/news/mobile/index.ssf/2015/07/mobile_becomes_obstacle_course.html Ok, time to prove it again. Local newspaper color/interest piece that focuses on the event.  Mobile Alabama, thereby showing that this isn't just a Jacksonville thing.
 * https://www.collegian.psu.edu/news/campus/article_871c9e3a-1a8e-11e8-a46d-0792ad42ff54.html Again. An Independent Student Newspaper on the campus of Penn State, seems like it's fairly independent, reliable and covering the content in depth.
 * https://westseattleblog.com/2017/12/from-the-in-case-you-wondered-too-file-the-flag-bearing-marchers/ Again, local (if very narrowly focused) community reporting source documenting the happenings around the community.  Seems like this would have been an obvious one, but when you come in with pre-concieved notions...
 * https://www.nianticlabs.com/blog/operationclearfield/ I can only assume that your "blog blinders" were on high alert because if you would have bothered to read, you would have seen this was was a personal narrative explaining how a specific event co-branded with GORUCK was like (i.e. REVIEW) you would have seen and understood the demonstration of notability
 * (High_King): Nom's statement shows that they misunderstand policy. If that was the case, any consumer reviews of a product would be barred from Wikipedia.  The "blog opinions" are giving their narrative explaining their experience, something that I could have sworn was desirable.  High King proposes a Catch-22 in their nomination: You can't write about a subject if you don't have experience about it, but if you have experience about it, you can't be trusted to write objectively/reliably about it. I also note that the claims of churnalism are patently false as having been in these events I can tell that the content was not written by the company, but is the individual consumer's reactions/responses.
 * (WBG) A very poorly articulated WP:PERX argument. As evidenced by the thorough analysis above of Scope Creep's delete argument, we come back to a weak argument.
 * In short I do admit some of the content is sub-optimal, however this is a relatively new creation and with multiple editors pointing out improvements, I feel WP:HEY is valid here. Hasteur (talk) 01:15, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * This is absurd. Strip away the posturing and all you are left with is an argument that we should accept non-independent, unreliable sources because... you've read them? And some of them are published in Jacksonville?? This is nothing but WP:ILIKEIT and a spectacular failure to observe WP:AGF to boot. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 06:47, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Precisely. Blogs, student newspapers, PR-journalism and what not.
 * Hasteur, you are somewhere miles afar from the current community-interpretation of the policies and it might be wise to drop your aggressive posturing. At the same time, I am quite dumbfounded as to what caused Legacy to accept a textbook example of decline. &#x222F; WBG converse 13:22, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * From the article talk page: I wonder if 'pac didn't realise that Hasteur was the creator. Either way, it suggests a thorough review wasn't actually completed. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 14:38, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * , I now see that Hasteur mentioned at RUD about the company asking him to work on the article.Sigh....... &#x222F; WBG converse 12:13, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
 * - Stinks to high heaven that Hasteur would only mention this now after kicking up such a stink and accusing other editors of not understanding or misinterpreting policy.  HighKing++ 16:46, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
 * He didn't, had to dig it up. I think his failure to clearly disclose the COI throughout all these discussions is extremely disingenuous, although it may be technically within policy. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 17:17, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Please see my other comment below, and the conversation linked in it. That indication of a COI may have unnecessary, in my opinion. I removed the COI notice from the article's talk page because of that response (although I linked to some details elsewhere on the talk page). —BarrelProof (talk) 20:52, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Please check your outright accusations of malfeasance. Please see THIS DIFF where I expressly called out the potential COI and why I used AFC to explicitly give a second view.  I went back to the AFC project talk because it appeared that editors were doing what all 3 of you did: Follow bright line rules without spending more than 30 seconds on actually reading content/references. I guess slinging mud is more easy than defending your position on straight up facts. Hasteur (talk) 03:09, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Yup, putting a comment on a Draft clearly follows the recommended guidelines on disclosing COI ... not. Convenient that the comment gets removed when the article is moved to mainspace and then you wig out with accusations of other editors not understanding policy/guidelines when it gets to AfD. And when that fail, start making personal comments on editors. Nice.  HighKing</b>++ 16:25, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Yup, putting a comment on a Draft clearly follows the recommended guidelines on disclosing COI ... not. Convenient that the comment gets removed when the article is moved to mainspace and then you wig out with accusations of other editors not understanding policy/guidelines when it gets to AfD. And when that fail, start making personal comments on editors. Nice. <b style="font-family: Courier; color: darkgreen;"> HighKing</b>++ 16:25, 21 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete – coverage in blogs, PR campaigns, corporate web pages, and student newspapers, none of which satisfy the sourcing requirements at WP:NCORP. Brad  v 🍁 14:08, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete per WBG, nom and Joe Roe. The assessment of the sources is spot on. Praxidicae (talk) 14:42, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment It is a blog reference as a well. It was a simple mistake. Its written by a Niantic employee, who likes the kit, and linked to the site. It is entirely non RS, and not acceptable per WP policies WP:V and WP:NOT/WP:NOTBLOG. The time article ref which is now in the article, is a poor source as its more about the beach landings, as it is about the company.   scope_creep Talk  17:02, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * a source does not need to be primarily about the subject to constitute significant coverage of the subject. The Time article contains a solid paragraph about GoRuck which I believe meets the significant-coverage requirement. If there is a second source like this, it's a keeper as far as I'm concerned. ~Kvng (talk) 21:31, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Ya know, when you look to see what is said in that article about GoRuck, it starts with the paragraph "GoRuck, founded by Iraq veteran...." and quotes a list of statistics such as number of events and revenues, then into pricing. Essentially three sentences, but impressive. Then I asked myself, how would a journalist know these things for a private company? Could he investigate? Is this an good example of "original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject"? The more I thought about it, the more I realised those numbers could only have come from the company itself. So I searched around and eventually came up with this from the GoRuck website. So I really don't think the Time reference meets the criteria for establishing notability as all the pertinent information must have originated from company sources. If they'd written in more detail on the company, I'd be happier to accept this source but based on what is in there, it is a "no" for me. <b style="font-family: Courier; color: darkgreen;"> HighKing</b>++ 13:19, 15 December 2018 (UTC)


 * FYI Just putting Hasteur's complaint here, closed off now. <b style="font-family: Courier; color: darkgreen;"> HighKing</b>++ 19:37, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:37, 15 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete. The available sources do not pass the high bar of WP:NCORP, which was put in place to precisely to prevent the kind of underhanded promotional editing that it now transpires created this article. And to think, I was going to ask for their backpack for Christmas! –&#8239;Joe (talk) 17:22, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Based on a follow-up conversation with the editor in question, I wouldn't characterize the situation quite so uncharitably, so I think that if you know someone generous enough to give you one of those backpacks, it would be OK to include it in your wish list. —BarrelProof (talk) 20:43, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I would. Conflicts of interest ought to be declared, and I shouldn't have had to search the far recesses of REFUND archives to find it. Brad  v 🍁 20:45, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

<ul><li>Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.

<ol> <li> The article notes: "In bag-loving circles, GoRuck’s origin story has become the stuff of legend. In 2008, founder Jason McCarthy left the Special Forces, had his heart broken, and out of the rubble of his life built a bag based on his experiences overseas that could tackle both urban commutes and battles against insurgents. Their flagship bag is the GR1, which I have been using as my everyday bag for the past two weeks. This military-inspired bag has acquired a cult following, but I have to confess: I have a few complaints. ... If this bag cost $150, I would recommend it wholeheartedly, but at almost $300, and with features like (mostly cosmetic) MOLLE webbing loading it down, it's little difficult to stomach. If you are a badass, or aspiring badass who has scratch to spare, the GR1 is definitely a pack to consider. That said, commuters who have no qualms about carrying a wimpier, lighter, cheaper pack will be better served by another option."</li> <li> The book notes: "GORUCK Challenge Organizers are careful to stress that this is a challenge, not a race. And although physical stamina is certainly required, perhaps the bigger trial of this military-inspired event is working as a team to accomplish your goal. Along the way you must use your problem-solving skills, leadership, and strength to complete the course under the orders of a badass cadre (drill sergeant) while carrying a weighted rucksack around a city." The book notes: "The official drink of the GORUCK is beer, so you know these folks don't take themselves too seriously. However, when you're out on a challenge in the middle of the night with a 40-pound rucksack on your back, a cadre who is ordering you to drop and give him 20 aἀer you've carried a heavy log for the past three hours, and a teammate who is simultaneously retching and weeping, you realize that you're going to have to earn that beer." The book also has sections about "What to Expect", "The Obstacles", and "Expert Advice" for the GORUCK Challenge.</li> <li> The article notes: "GORUCK began as a backpack manufacturer in 2008 but didn’t make many sales, so founder and former Green Beret Jason McCarthy diversified, creating the challenges as a way to employ veterans and acquaint civilians with military-style training while tapping into the public’s growing desire for the next big, punishing, dirty challenge. (Spartan Race hits this same target, as does Tough Mudder—both are booming. There’s even a documentary called Rise of the Sufferfests.) Why would people pay upwards of $100 to approximate something that members of the military are forced to do? Some say it’s a way to identify with the people who fight our wars. Others think it’s a form of rebellion, a response to an increasingly coddled, social media-obsessed, and therefore inauthentic life. Me, I just like to feel strong, and to see what my body can do. There are three levels of GORUCK Challenges, with the easiest taking up to five hours—and boasting a 100 percent completion rate—and the hardest involving a 40-mile hump over 24 straight hours. Only one out of two participants complete that level, which might involve crawling through cold mud, hoisting telephone poles, and bear-crawling with someone clutching your abdomen like a koala. For every challenge, you carry a rucksack stuffed with weights."</li> <li> The article notes: "On Friday evening, more than 700 people gathered in the Georgetown neighborhood in Washington, D.C., to embark on a 50-mile challenge organized by the Veteran-owned business GORUCK. GORUCK’s business is two-fold. It sells ruck sacks and gear for “rucking” so individuals can have reliable, American made equipment. The second part is the GORUCK challenge. These challenges are led by a cadre of individuals that have served in our military’s special forces. Their experience and leadership motivate ruckers to pick up their weight and take on a challenge that will improve their body and their mind. ... Friday night’s challenge was inspired by an executive order that Teddy Roosevelt issued to his military: march 50 miles in 20 hours. Years later, John F. Kennedy echoed the challenge. GORUCK took up that order, and organized an event that sent challengers up and down the C&O canal, and then all over Washington, D.C., to cover at least 50 miles. The large group was broken up into teams of 2-to-5 people, and each team was to visit more than a dozen way-points before ending their challenge. Way-points included the Lincoln Memorial, the Washington Monument, World War II Memorial, the Supreme Court and other important landmarks in Washington."</li> <li> The article notes: "...It was the GORUCK Tough, a 12-hour, 15-mile, overnight team endurance event put on by former members of the military. ... GORUCK began as a backpack manufacturer in 2008 and expanded into endurance events as a way to employ veterans and acquaint civilians with military-style training while capitalizing on the public’s increasing interest in body-punishing challenges like Spartan Race and Tough Mudder. There are three levels of GORUCK Challenges, with the “Light” taking up to five hours and boasting a 100 percent completion rate. I did one of those in May. The hardest, known as the “Heavy,” involves a 40-mile hump over 24 straight hours (one out of two participants makes it through this one). The “Tough” (with a 94 percent completion rate) sits in the middle, and might involve crawling through mud, standing nose-high in cold water while hoisting your backpack overhead, and doing burpees until you want to puke. For every challenge, you carry a rucksack stuffed with weights, a water bladder, a headlamp, and any gear you think you might need."</li> <li> The article notes: "As you were getting ready for bed Saturday night, 20 men and one woman were standing in Rock Creek in shorts and T-shirts belting the lyrics to the “SpongeBob SquarePants” theme song into the moonless night. That is, when they weren’t face down in the shallow water doing push-ups, or on their backs doing flutter kicks, or crawling on their bellies from the creek into the mud at the water’s edge and back in again — all with 40-pound packs on their backs. That was in the first hour or so of their excruciating 12-hour ordeal on the D.C. streets Saturday night and Sunday morning, a sometimes strange journey through Georgetown, Dupont Circle, Foggy Bottom and the Mall as the city partied and slept. It’s called the “GoRuck Challenge”, a military-style endurance event led by former Special Forces personnel that stresses toughness and teamwork in the face of almost insurmountable challenges. It is less extreme than some events in the growing field of obstacle racing, such as the annual Spartan Death Race­, ­but it’s much longer and more difficult than events such as Run Amuck and Warrior Dash."</li> <li> The article notes: "A nervous energy zips through the participants, and some begin to question themselves. Later that day, tourists celebrating the holiday in the nation’s capital will stop the teams and ask: What are you doing? The answer is the GoRuck Challenge, a grueling test of endurance that offers participants “a day in the life of Special Forces.” The objective of the challenge is not to finish first. It’s to finish. ... The GoRuck Challenge gives civilians a dose of Special Forces training. A former Army Special Forces soldier, Jason McCarthy, 34, founded GoRuck and modeled the challenge on the rigorous training he endured to earn the coveted Green Beret. ... He started the event in 2010, when he was still in graduate school at Georgetown University’s McDonough School of Business. Since then, GoRuck has led more than 750 challenges across the country. More events are planned for Paris, Tokyo and Sydney. In four years it has gone from a company that took in slightly more than $50,000 in annual revenue to one that expects to bring in $12 million this year. ... I completed my first challenge in March. It was a lung-burning, leg-wobbling, heart-throbbing experience that left me incapacitated for two days. My shoulders ached from the weight of my brick-laden backpack, my feet had blisters, and the skin on my legs had been rubbed raw from the 20 miles we walked around the District. But within a few weeks my wounds had healed and I was hungry for more." The article provides further background about the company: "Last month, he opened the first GoRuck retail location in Florida, and he hopes to open one in the District in the next year. He plans to expand GoRuck gear with a new line of outerwear, including jackets and pants. For now, GoRuck remains a small business, with 38 full-time employees. McCarthy takes pride in hiring combat veterans who have struggled to find employment." This source and some of the other sources contain quotes from people affiliated with the company.</li> <li> The article notes: "“Expect to carry or be carried by other participants.” That’s the disclaimer at the end of the written description for the Goruck BootCamp at Thomas Circle’s Balance Gym (1111 14th St. NW, balancegym.com). And it succinctly explains why this weekly class, held Wednesdays at 7 p.m., isn’t just any military-style sweatfest. Designed to prepare folks for Goruck’s increasingly popular events — grueling team missions based on special operations training — the 45-minute sessions promise a workout that’s unlike those normally found at gyms. “We rarely get to carry well-balanced things on deployments, and we have to deal with those things for an extended period of time,” says instructor Devin Reagan, who served in Iraq and Afghanistan before joining the Goruck Cadre (goruck.com)."</li> <li> The article notes: "Era la una de la mañana en una fría noche de enero y nos encontrábamos esperando en el estacionamiento del legendario edificio de 'Capitol Records ' en Hollywood, California. Un grupo de 18 hombres dispuestos a asumir el reto 'GORUCK Challenge'. La Clase N º 379 tomó las calles de Hollywood y comenzamos nuestra caminata hacia nuestro primer objetivo, el 'Hollywood Bowl'. Sin saber lo que venia, nos trasladamos en unísono, pero aun no nos comportábamos como equipo, la mayoría de nosotros marchábamos hacia adelante sin decir una palabra. Un grave error del que pronto sufriríamos las consecuencias."</li> <li> The YouTube video description notes: "Spencer Patterson, of San Diego, James Vreeland, of Detroit, and Grant Shymske, of Fort Bragg, survive the 48-hour GORUCK 'Selection' endurance event at Forest Preserve District of Cook County's Poplar Creek Trail System in Hoffman Estates. The event, based on Special Forces training, demands candidates crawl, march, swim, and be otherwise tested while not sleeping for two days. Patterson, Vreeland and Shymske were the only three of their class of 11 candidates who finished, earning each of them a 'Selection' patch. For more video, visit http://chicagotribune.com/video, subscribe to this channel, or follow us @TribVideo."</li> <li> The article notes: "For nearly 48 hours straight last week, Paige Bowie shouldered a 50-pound rucksack while she ran, hiked and pumped out grueling military-style exercises designed to break down Special Forces trainees. She became the first woman to complete a grueling endurance challenge called the GORUCK Selection, which has only been held four times in Florida, Washington, D.C., and the Bay Area. Sixty-six other tough men and women have attempted the challenge, but only 13, including Bowie, have finished. ... Part of the challenge of the race is that participants must carry at least 45 pounds in their brand name GORUCK sacks. The company started organizing endurance events, which range from four to six hours to the 48-hour event, to test their gear for combat. And at any point in the race, the cadre can weigh the pack and boot a participant who is under the weight requirement. ... The GORUCK Selection is relatively new and has only been held three previous times in Neptune Beach and St. Augustine, Fla., and Washington, D.C."</li> <li> The article notes: "The Goruck Challenge, which grew out of former Green Beret Jason McCarthy's desire to market a military-grade rucksack, will be coming to Baltimore next weekend for the second straight year. It is the second stop in 2012 on what has become a 70-event tour in the United States and Canada and a seven-event tour overseas. With most of the participants wearing one of McCarthy's $300 rucksacks filled with bricks, the challenge lasts between eight and 10 hours, with participants covering 15 to 20 miles and performing tasks that involve carrying heavy objects — including one another — that have some connection to the city where the event is being held. ... Among the tasks Maier completed was carrying a tree trunk weighing several hundreds of pounds over the Key Bridge to Roosevelt Island and running through Rock Creek Park 'at 3 in the morning in water that is waist deep.' The challenge finished by ascending the steps of the Lincoln Memorial en masse — like a bunch of real-life Rockys at the Philadelphia Art Museum, the finish for that city's event."</li> <li> The book notes: "GORUCK is a lifestyle brand that makes a variety of rucksacks and other equipment. The company also hosts the GORUCK Challenge, which it markets as 10 to 13 hours of 'good living.' In reality it is a grueling half-day of physical punishment that will test you to your limits. If you imagine boot camp crammed into half of a day, you have an idea of what it might be liked. Of the challenge, Jason McCarthy, founder and chief executive officer of GORUCK, says, 'The biggest challenge to overcome is your own mind. Yes, there are physical challenges, but the hardest ones are all in your head.'"</li> </ol>

There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow GoRuck to pass Notability, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard (talk) 02:05, 17 December 2018 (UTC)</li></ul>
 * Pinging, who wrote here about the Time article that "If there is a second source like this, it's a keeper as far as I'm concerned", to review the sources I have posted above. Cunard (talk) 02:05, 17 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep - Thanks, this definitely takes it over the hump for me. ~Kvng (talk) 03:51, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * , Cunard has been asked not to post his wall of text in the past because 1) It is totally unnecessary 2) Most of the references he posts fail the criteria for establishing notability. So .. you say it "takes it over the hump" for you. Can you point to any two references that you believe meets the criteria for establishing notability? <b style="font-family: Courier; color: darkgreen;"> HighKing</b>++ 10:27, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Personally, I'm very glad to see someone doing some work to dig up sources and analyze them, even if that produces a "wall" of information to be studied. Adding information from some of those sources may help improve the article. However, to ease summary-level reading of the discussion, I've put collapse top and collapse bottom around Cunard's list. —BarrelProof (talk) 19:25, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * In addition to the Time piece, and  for the company. If we want to talk about notability of the event, then many more apply. Also I don't have a problem with participants quoting refs here. ~Kvng (talk) 14:54, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Seriously? One reference says GORUCK began as a backpack manufacturer in 2008 but didn’t make many sales, so founder and former Green Beret Jason McCarthy diversified, creating the challenges as a way to employ veterans and acquaint civilians with military-style training while tapping into the public’s growing desire for the next big, punishing, dirty challenge and the other says GoRuck’s origin story has become the stuff of legend. In 2008, founder Jason McCarthy left the Special Forces, had his heart broken, and out of the rubble of his life built a bag based on his experiences overseas that could tackle both urban commutes and battles against insurgents.??? Neither meets the criteria for establishing notability. Both fail WP:CORPDEPTH. <b style="font-family: Courier; color: darkgreen;"> HighKing</b>++ 19:45, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, seriously. Based on what I see elsewhere on this page, I will not engage with you further. ~Kvng (talk) 04:38, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep, but remane GoRuck Challenge. There is in-depth coverage for the company and the challenge, but there is MORE about the challenge, including this and this. New opening sentence for the lede - The GoRuck Challenge is an organized teambuilding event founded by American sporting equipment company GoRuck. --CNMall41 (talk) 16:22, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep and rename per CNMall41, who is correct that the sources support the article existing at GoRuck Challenge, similar to Spartan Race. UnitedStatesian (talk) 16:40, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * If you have an opinion about the name of the article (or the styling of the name), I suggest to participate in the RM discussion taking place at Talk:GoRuck. That should be the primary place to discuss the name of the article. This is the place to discuss whether or not to delete the article. Strictly speaking, I have the impression that not all of the events organized by GoRuck are properly called "GoRuck Challenge" events. On their website, they show a number of different types of events, and only one category is called "GoRuck Challenge" events. —BarrelProof (talk) 19:25, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * That RM discussion is purely typographical and does not involve what is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. UnitedStatesian (talk) 15:44, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * This absolutely IS the appropriate venue, not the talk page. This is essentially a merge into a new page and an appropriate WP:ATD. --CNMall41 (talk) 16:56, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep: With the additional sources identified by Cunard, I think it's clear that this company (or its challenge events) has received enough coverage by multiple independent reliable sources spanning multiple newsworthy events over a period of several years (three articles in The Washington Post, two articles in the Chicago Tribune, two books, Wired, Baltimore Sun, U.S. Dept. of Veteran's Affairs, Mercury News, Time). The Washington Post even said that among enthusiasts, the company's origin story "has become the stuff of legend". —BarrelProof (talk) 00:26, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment The reason why Cunard's wall-of-text is harmful to the process is because Cunard is invariably incorrect in his assessment of the sources and ignores WP:NCORP which is the actual applicable guideline for organizations and corporations. Cunard quotes significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources as a catch-all for each and every one of the 13 references and then goes on to selectively quote from each one, while often willfully ignoring parts of the reference that show that the reference does not meet the criteria for establishing notability. And I'm pretty sick of this behaviour as it invariably leads to busy editors assuming that Cunard has done a bunch of in-depth analysis and invariably agree with his poor analysis.
 * Lets look at his "significant coverage in multiple reliable sources" references one-by-one


 * The wired article is a review of the GR1 - a backpack produced by the company. The reference ends with a big blue "BUY NOW" button and a notice that states "When you buy something using the retail links in our product reviews, we earn a small affiliate commission". It also has very little to say about the company itself. Fail.
 * The book reference says absolutely nothing about the company. Zero, nada, zilch. Fail.
 * The Atlanta Magazine reference says SFA about the company itself. Fail.
 * The United States Department of Veterans Affairs reference is a blog. Fail.
 * This Atlanta Magazine reference (written by the same author as the previous one) describes her experience participating in a GoRuck challenge and (once again) says zero about the actual company. Nothing. Fail.
 * This Washington Post reference describes participants' experiences (including the author's) in a Goruck challenge. Once again, nothing about the company. Fail.
 * This next Washington Post reference is the same - absolutely nothing about the company. Fail.
 * The next reference is a video of participants in a GoRuck challenge. Self published source. Fail.
 * This Mercury News reference says nothing about the company. Fail.
 * This Baltimore Sun reference says nothing about the company and also relies on information provided by company officers (which Cunard conveniently leaves out of his selective quoting). Fail.
 * This book is self-published. Cunard also conveniently leaves out all the quotations from the founder which follows the selective quotes he provides. Fail.
 * In my opinion, Cunard should be barred from quoting any more than 3 references in their chosen format and Cunard should also be reprimanded for any obvious bad citations such as blogs and YouTube videos. It takes significant time to go through his walls of text and from experience, he is incorrect more than 90% of the time.


 * All that said, the suggestion to turn the article into one about "GoRuck Challenge" has merit as is supported by at least two references. But the company is not notable. <b style="font-family: Courier; color: darkgreen;"> HighKing</b>++ 19:37, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, take it to ANI if you cannot work things out with Cunard. Disagreeing with their analysis doesn't make them wrong, it just means you disagree. I for one welcome the analysis, even if I don't agree with it and it is easy to collapse if needed. If "it invariably leads to busy editors assuming that Cunard has done a bunch of in-depth analysis" then that is an issue with those editors, not Cunard, as Wikipedia requires competency. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:08, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia doesn't require walls of text with selected extracts from sources that often leave off parts of the sources that clearly show that the source is not acceptable. He has been asked by me and by others to stop this practice. Yes, I agree, probably needs to be taken up at ANI. The only issue I have with Cunard is his postings of walls of text. <b style="font-family: Courier; color: darkgreen;"> HighKing</b>++ 16:25, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 * That's mighty rich coming from someone who I seem to recall had a very significant Topic ban for misinterperting sources. I would note that WP:POT seems to apply quite heavily to HighKing and their willful disregard of the WP:HEY standard suggests that their prejudiced view is not going to be changed short of a Act of Jimbo/WP:OFFICE action.  If anything the attempt to silence opposition that does not support their viewpoint speaks to a far more disruptive and poisonous behavior. Hasteur (talk) 03:15, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
 * LoL - I take it you still upset and being caught hiding your COI? If you're going to bring up a topic ban dating from 2011, at least try and get the reasons for the ban correct. (Hint: It wasn't about misinterpreting sources). <b style="font-family: Courier; color: darkgreen;"> HighKing</b>++ 16:25, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: This is an unnecessarily, but unsurprisingly, unpleasant discussion. Ignoring all off-topic commentary and arguments based on obviousness, most sources mentioned by those advocating to "keep" have been convincingly debunked. The possibility of retitling has also not received much consideration; a couple of the sources have also not been examined enough, particularly in light of the proposal to retitle. Relisting to allow this to be discussed.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (talk) 10:12, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete: does not meet WP:NCORP / WP:CORPDEPTH; significant RS coverage not found. Sourcing is routine notices, passing mentions and / or WP:SPIP. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:18, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The event put on by the company still falls under WP:NCORP and it's not notable either. It's still a "delete" for me. --K.e.coffman (talk) 19:33, 21 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment It is still a delete for me. I dont see any distinction between a company A, and a company A holding events. It is still covered by WP:NCORP. There is no standalone rationale or merit for an events article, as it will still be the company name at the top of the article, so NCORP still applies.   scope_creep Talk 
 * <b style="font-family: Courier; color: darkgreen;"> HighKing</b>++'s review of the Cunard's references are spot on. The first one is a shopping page.  scope_creep Talk  20:38, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

<ul><li>Comment: I disagree with 's assertion that "most sources mentioned by those advocating to 'keep' have been convincingly debunked". I support retention because the sources I have found prove that GoRuck as a brand has received significant coverage in reliable sources. Whether the article should be focused on the company (and live at GoRuck) or be focused on the event (and live at GoRuck Challenge) is a content decision. The AfD nominator has noted, "All that said, the suggestion to turn the article into one about 'GoRuck Challenge' has merit as is supported by at least two references. But the company is not notable." Renaming the article to be about GoRuck Challenge may be the right approach, but that decision should not be made at this AfD. BarrelProof noted above, "Strictly speaking, I have the impression that not all of the events organized by GoRuck are properly called 'GoRuck Challenge' events. On their website, they show a number of different types of events, and only one category is called 'GoRuck Challenge' events." There is a good faith concern that "GoRuck Challenge" may not be the appropriate title. Other events include GoRuck Selection and GoRuck Light. Both events have also been covered by reliable sources. GoRuck bags have also been covered in reliable sources. Whether to rename the article should be discussed in a Requested moves discussion. Here are my responses to HighKing's responses about my sources:

<ol><li>The wired article is a review of the GR1 - a backpack produced by the company. The reference ends with a big blue "BUY NOW" button and a notice that states "When you buy something using the retail links in our product reviews, we earn a small affiliate commission". It also has very little to say about the company itself. Fail. – I provided this source because it covers the brand in an unflattering light. https://www.wired.com/2015/11/affiliate-link-policy/ says: "FROM TIME TO time we will post links to buy products from Amazon.com or other online retailers. If you choose to click, the URL will contain a small code that identifies links from our website, and that signals the retailer to send our company a small percentage of the money you spend. This does not mean we are indebted to Amazon or any other retailer, nor does it lead us to favor some products or companies over others. Our affiliate program functions completely independently of our editorial and newsgathering process. Reporters and editors are not encouraged to cover products because they are available on Amazon or anywhere else, and do not benefit from doing so." This establishes that the Wired article is independent of GoRuck. The review of the bag has negative material. It says: "If this bag cost $150, I would recommend it wholeheartedly, but at almost $300, and with features like (mostly cosmetic) MOLLE webbing loading it down, it's little difficult to stomach. If you are a badass, or aspiring badass who has scratch to spare, the GR1 is definitely a pack to consider. That said, commuters who have no qualms about carrying a wimpier, lighter, cheaper pack will be better served by another option."</li><li>The book reference says absolutely nothing about the company. Zero, nada, zilch. Fail. – this source covers the GoRuck Challenge, which is part of the GoRuck brand.</li><li>The Atlanta Magazine reference says SFA about the company itself. Fail. – this article provides one sentence of coverage about the company: GORUCK began as a backpack manufacturer in 2008 but didn’t make many sales, so founder and former Green Beret Jason McCarthy diversified, creating the challenges as a way to employ veterans and acquaint civilians with military-style training while tapping into the public’s growing desire for the next big, punishing, dirty challenge. The rest of the article is about the GoRuck Challenge.</li><li>The United States Department of Veterans Affairs reference is a blog. Fail. – VAntage is the official blog of the United States Department of Veterans Affairs and is written by a Veterans Affairs staff member. The staff biography says, "Timothy Lawson has been a member of VA’s Digital Media Engagement team since April 2016 and is the host of VA’s official podcast, Borne the Battle." I consider an article written by a staff member for the "Official Blog of the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs" to be a reliable source.</li><li>This Atlanta Magazine reference (written by the same author as the previous one) describes her experience participating in a GoRuck challenge and (once again) says zero about the actual company. Nothing. Fail. – this article provides one sentence of coverage about the company: GORUCK began as a backpack manufacturer in 2008 and expanded into endurance events as a way to employ veterans and acquaint civilians with military-style training while capitalizing on the public’s increasing interest in body-punishing challenges like Spartan Race and Tough Mudder. The rest of the article is about the GoRuck Challenge.</li><li>This Washington Post reference describes participants' experiences (including the author's) in a Goruck challenge. Once again, nothing about the company. Fail. – this article is about the GoRuck Challenge.</li><li>This next Washington Post reference is the same - absolutely nothing about the company. Fail. – this article discusses a GoRuck class hosted or sponsored by the company, "Goruck BootCamp".</li><li>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DrJmWxFyNcM The next reference] is a video of participants in a GoRuck challenge. Self published source. Fail. – this YouTube video was published by the Chicago Tribune and filmed by Tribune staff member Michael Tercha. That the Chicago Tribune decided to cover the GoRuck Challenge helps to establish notability. The only affiliation the participants in the challenge have with the company is that they are customers. I do not consider the company's customers to have a "vested interest" in the company.</li><li>This Mercury News reference says nothing about the company. Fail. – this article is about the GoRuck Challenge.</li><li>This Baltimore Sun reference says nothing about the company and also relies on information provided by company officers (which Cunard conveniently leaves out of his selective quoting). Fail. – this article is about the GoRuck Challenge. I quote the content I consider to make the company notable, so I usually do not include quotes from company employees.</li><li>This book is self-published. Cunard also conveniently leaves out all the quotations from the founder which follows the selective quotes he provides. Fail. – this was not self-published. It was published by John Wiley & Sons. I did not leave out "all the quotations from the founder". Here is what I quoted above: "GORUCK is a lifestyle brand that makes a variety of rucksacks and other equipment. The company also hosts the GORUCK Challenge, which it markets as 10 to 13 hours of 'good living.' In reality it is a grueling half-day of physical punishment that will test you to your limits. If you imagine boot camp crammed into half of a day, you have an idea of what it might be liked. Of the challenge, Jason McCarthy, founder and chief executive officer of GORUCK, says, 'The biggest challenge to overcome is your own mind. Yes, there are physical challenges, but the hardest ones are all in your head.'" The third paragraph contains the quote from the founder.</li></ol>

Cunard (talk) 05:56, 25 December 2018 (UTC)</li></ul>
 * Here are three more sources from Men's Journal and Thrillist about the GoRuck brand: one is a review of a GoRuck backpack and two discuss GoRuck Nasty:<ol><li> The article notes, "The Goruck Nasty Opens a New Window., which will be held in McGaheysville, Virginia, on September 21, promises gimmick-free physical competition. The course includes cargo nets, wood beams and a variety of obstacles that the military uses during basic and not-at-all basic training – some 20 hazards all together."</li><li> The article notes, "The thing we like best about the GORUCK GR1 is how easy it is to keep your stuff organized in it. With multiple internal mesh pockets, a laptop (or hydration system) pouch in the padded back panel, and an open-flat design, it’s easy to locate and access whatever you’re looking for. Unlike other backpacks we’ve used, where all the contents inevitably end up in shambles at the bottom, everything inside the GR1 stays in its place. Fully loaded with clothes, a pair of shoes, and laptop, the 26-liter pack weighs about 35 pounds, but thanks to wide-padded shoulder straps and a snug, ergonomic fit, it’s far less taxing than any other backpack we’ve lugged."</li><li> The article notes, "Finally taking the "extreme" obstacle course trend to the next level, GORUCK NASTY's a weekend-long festival at Massenutten Resort, VA loaded with camping, tailgating, "crushing $1 beers", and a 6+ mile, 20+ obstacle course modeled by Green Berets after the exact one they had to pass."</li></ol> If this article were to be moved to GoRuck Challenge, how would GoRuck Nasty and GoRuck GR1 be covered? GoRuck Nasty and GoRuck GR1 would be either mentioned in passing or not mentioned at all in a GoRuck Challenge article but could be covered more fully in a GoRuck article. It makes sense to keep the article at GoRuck so that it can discuss all of the company's events and products. Otherwise, covering this content will require separate articles for each product and event. I would prefer a single article for now until there is enough material to create spinoff articles. Cunard (talk) 08:18, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

<ul><li>Comment: Here are three sources that provide significant coverage of the company:<ol> <li>The Time magazine article discussed above.</li> <li>HighKing's examination of the sources I provided did not include a The Washington Post article I had linked that provides significant coverage of the company: The article notes: "The GoRuck Challenge gives civilians a dose of Special Forces training. A former Army Special Forces soldier, Jason McCarthy, 34, founded GoRuck and modeled the challenge on the rigorous training he endured to earn the coveted Green Beret. ... He started the event in 2010, when he was still in graduate school at Georgetown University’s McDonough School of Business. Since then, GoRuck has led more than 750 challenges across the country. More events are planned for Paris, Tokyo and Sydney. In four years it has gone from a company that took in slightly more than $50,000 in annual revenue to one that expects to bring in $12 million this year. ... Last month, he opened the first GoRuck retail location in Florida, and he hopes to open one in the District in the next year. He plans to expand GoRuck gear with a new line of outerwear, including jackets and pants. For now, GoRuck remains a small business, with 38 full-time employees. McCarthy takes pride in hiring combat veterans who have struggled to find employment."</li> <li> The article notes: "McCarthy, 34, entered business school in 2009 with plans to start a security-consulting firm that would offer instruction in packing a “go bag” – a pack full of supplies that could carry people through any emergency. But he quickly realized most bags on the civilian market weren’t tough enough. So he started designing his own. [quote from McCarthy] McCarthy spent two years developing the bags that make up most of GoRuck’s product line Opens a New Window. (four styles, starting at $195). Early on, he battle-tested his prototypes, literally – sending them to Green Beret buddies in Afghanistan and Iraq. Then he grew concerned about sending unproven gear to men in danger, so he established another proving ground: the GoRuck Challenge Opens a New Window. . In these team-oriented endurance runs, which are led by combat veterans and incorporate Special Forces training, participants carry a GoRuck sack loaded with rocks or bricks. The results: super-rugged bags (all handmade in the U.S.) with a minimalist look and maximized features. Every GoRuck sack is made from weatherproof Cordura (a tear-resistant nylon) and loaded with military-inspired extras like silent zipper pulls and cross-stitched stress points that can withstand 400-plus pounds of pressure. Slim enough to squeeze through small doorways in Afghanistan, the packs open to a surprising amount of surface area – when they’re unfolded like an Army medic’s trauma pack, everything inside is quickly accessible. [quote from McCarthy]" This article provides significant background about the company's foundation, its history, its product line Opens a New Window, and GoRuck Challenge.</li> </ol> Some of these articles contain quotes from people affiliated with the company. I agree with 's sentiment expressed above, "of course, any reference can be dismissed as not independent because the person talked to a representative of the subject or participated in an activity (ie did some research)". There is enough independent research and analysis to establish notability for the GoRuck brand. Cunard (talk) 05:56, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Response Hi Cunard, I appreciate you have reduced your listing of sources to the suggestion of three. Thank you.
 * First off, we've already discussed the Time Magazine article and I'd like to point out that there is no evidence that this is an actual GoRuck event. The article states it is an endurance event *sponsored* by GoRuck. I've also pointed out that the information provided within the article on the number of events, revenues, etc, can only have been provided by the company itself and is therefore not a result of "independent research/analysis etc". This source fails WP:ORGIND.
 * The Washington Post reference relies extensively on quotations/interview with Stokes (a GoRuck employee and instructor), McCarthy (the founder) and Webb (a participant that has taken part in 29 challenges). The journalist is also a participant in this particular "GoRuck Challenge" (his second). I honestly don't see anything in this article (that is a result of independent analysis/opinon/etc) that can be used to support anything in this article (other than, perhaps, the GoRuck challenges are tough?). All of the GoRuck facts, stats, data, etc, comes from the company or from company-related sources and even the selected quotes you've extracted are clearly from company or company-related sources. This article fails CORPDEPTH and ORGIND.
 * This Mens Journal reference isn't working for me just now. From the selection you've extracted, it appears to discuss the topic of GoRuck bags. You say that the article provides "significant background about the company's foundation, its history, its product line.." but it appears to me to be the same background provided to all other journalists for their articles. I don't see any "significant" background that hasn't appeared in other articles (and been provided by the company).
 * Let us also deal with your comment that articles that have quotations from a representative should not be dismissed. You and LegacyPac are misrepresenting what has been previous said but to be clear, sources that "rely extensively" on quotations/interviews fail ORGIND because "Independent content, in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject"(my emphasis). The references above do not, for me, fail this requirement. ORGIND goes on to say that "If source's independence is of any doubt, it is better to exercise caution and exclude it from determining quality sources for the purposes of establishing notability" (where "source's independence" is both independence of the author and independence of the content). The references above fail these simply tests. <b style="font-family: Courier; color: darkgreen;"> HighKing</b>++ 14:45, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The Time magazine article says, "... do just that in an endurance event sponsored by GoRuck, a nine-year-old U.S. company that sells both rucksacks and the chance to do hundreds of push-ups and haul tree trunks while carrying 20-30 pounds on your back under the direction of current, and former, special ops officers". https://www.facebook.com/events/1621660354737289 says the event is "Hosted by GORUCK". https://www.facebook.com/GORUCK/ has a blue badge that says "Facebook confirmed this is an authentic Page for this public figure, media company or brand". It is clear from both the Time article and the Facebook page that GoRuck arranged this event. The article contains independent analysis of the company such as comparing it to other companies: "Just like CrossFit and obstacle race brands like Tough Mudder and Spartan Race, GoRuck is cashing in on the demand for extreme exercise." Written by a journalist who participated in the event, The Washington Post article provides the author's analysis and perspective on the company and its events. The author calls GoRuck's "newest event, the Nasty, its biggest gamble". Longer quote: "But what’s next for those who have finished a Tough Mudder, or two, with ease? For some weekend athletes, the mud-run bubble has burst, and they are seeking new outlets, such as GoRuck, to slake their thirst for adrenaline. Which makes GoRuck’s newest event, the Nasty, its biggest gamble. On Sept. 21, the company will host an expected 3,600 participants at the Massanutten ski resort outside Harrisonburg, Va., for its first foray into obstacle racing. The Nasty will be patterned on “Nasty Nick,” an Army Special Forces obstacle course at Camp Mackall, N.C., that all candidates must complete to don the Green Beret." Here is another quote from the author about how he thinks GoRuck helps "narrow the divide" between civilians like him and "elite troops" who undergo a "brutal regimen": "As I sat in my high school classrooms in 2003, teenagers just a little older than I was rode Humvees through the desert to unseat a dictator. Although the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks have defined my generation, many of us have felt removed from the wars that followed. For thousands like me, GoRuck has helped narrow the divide. If only for a few hours — and far from an actual battlefield — the challenge offers a glimpse of the brutal regimen the elite troops must endure. For most participants, the day-long event is enough to satisfy the curiosity." Regarding the Men's Journal article, none of the other sources discuss the "Opens a New Window" GoRuck product line. None of the other sources say the bags were sent to be "battle-tested" by Green Beret friends of McCarthy's in Afghanistan and Iraq. The article provides the author's analysis of GoRug's bags ("The results: super-rugged bags (all handmade in the U.S.) with a minimalist look and maximized features".) There is plenty of independent opinion and analysis about the GoRuck brand in the sources. Cunard (talk) 08:18, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks Cunard. Can I ask that you look at this another way for a second. I'm sure everyone agrees that the company exists. For the purposes of notability, we want to find at least two articles that provide significant in-depth information on the company. We want to exclude, as much as possible, promotional material and marketing materials or material that was provided by the company, etc. I'm trying to extract from those three references any material that is
 * 1) About the company
 * 2) significant
 * 3) in-depth
 * 4) a result of original and independent opinion, analysis, etc
 * 5) substantial.
 * Even looking at your own analysis of the references above, they simply do not meet the criteria for establishing notability. The Time magazine says the event was sponsored by GoRuck - the Facebook page is a PRIMARY source and as such is not regarded as a reliable source. The information about the company was most likely provided by the company and there is no original and independent opinon/analysis/etc on the company itself (the topic of this article). The only original material concerns the author's opinion on participating in the event.
 * The WaPo article is pretty much the same. It does not provide any original analysis/opinion/etc on the company - the only information on the company has been provided by the company founder and this is clear from the article. Like the TIME magazine article, the only original material concerns the author's opinion on their own participation.
 * The Men's Journal article discusses a product. It provides no original analysis/opinion/etc on the company.
 * This isn't a case of saying that the product is notable and the event is notable and this other different event is notable and therefore the company is notable. That is not how we determine notability for companies/organizations. <b style="font-family: Courier; color: darkgreen;"> HighKing</b>++ 17:42, 28 December 2018 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.