Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hangover Helpers


 * 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. v/r - TP 14:45, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Hangover Helpers

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Delete. Non-notable company. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 18:12, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 22:47, 19 March 2012 (UTC)


 * It is a very funny and interesting idea, but I'm really not sure if we can consider notable a company whose activity is after party cleaning, making food and serving (non-alcoholic!) drinks to its customers. On the other hand, the sources exist; it is apparent from our article and from the first pages of the G-Search result for "Hangover Helpers" Boulder (Huffington Post, http://www.denverpost.com/lifestyles/ci_19634597 Denver Post, CU Independent, Agence France-Presse etc.) The coverage is not only 'local', Colorado-based, and I'd say weak keep. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 11:47, 20 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Make a mockery of WP doesn't it. WP:GNG allows all sorts of crap in as an article. Free advertising. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 18:25, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Not a mockery of WP, Alan. I doubt they care that much. Not a free advertising. It isn't easy to persuade media to write about you. Rather a stupidity of today's people, media and world in general. We are (among other things) an encyclopedia of our times. We cover also the stupidity of our times. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 20:37, 20 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I've omitted to read both the articles by Denver Post properly and I confused the links, apologies. I thought about it a bit more and I think this case may also constitute WP:NOT, since all the sources are rather repetitive, mentioning only 'one interesting idea' of a 'starting company'. That's all. Let's see what others say. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 22:16, 20 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. Clever startup ideas from college students do occasionally get a flurry of press coverage from local sources.  This is the business page equivalent of a standard human interest story.  I don't believe that it establishes the sort of significant effect on history, culture, or technology that would turn this into an encyclopedia subject. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:41, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:29, 27 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - nothing notable about this. Just a cleaning company with a gimmick.NealeFamily (talk) 07:51, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - Is the rationale in the above !vote a personal opinion, or based upon the availability of reliable sources about the topic? Numerous reliable sources are available that cover the topic significantly. Northamerica1000(talk) 05:08, 28 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - per User:NealeFamily, this is a non-notable startup firm of cleaners with one witty gimmick. The citations don't add up to a row of beans really. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:26, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - Note that additional reliable sources that cover this topic significantly have been added to the article as of this post. Northamerica1000(talk) 05:09, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * not really, see below. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:35, 1 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:CRYSTAL - it does not yet appear to be a major player in the recovery business, but could be sooner or later. Bearian (talk) 21:51, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - How does a topic with many references from 2010 confer with the information at WP:CRYSTAL? Northamerica1000(talk) 05:11, 28 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep – Per WP:NTEMP, "Notability is not temporary: once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage."


 * The topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources, including Yahoo News India, Agence France-Presse News, USA Today, The Huffington Post and Time Magazine's Newsfeed:
 * — Northamerica1000(talk) 04:21, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * — Northamerica1000(talk) 04:21, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * — Northamerica1000(talk) 04:21, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * — Northamerica1000(talk) 04:21, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * — Northamerica1000(talk) 04:21, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * — Northamerica1000(talk) 04:21, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * — Northamerica1000(talk) 04:21, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * — Northamerica1000(talk) 04:21, 28 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Passes the GNG based on Northamerica1000's listed sources   Th e S te ve   10:58, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * ...sigh...!! -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 03:55, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * In other words, no matter how small a company is, as long as some sources can be dug up from anywhere around the world it is entitled to an article on Wikipedia. Looks like we are gonna get a lot more articles about businesses. Hey, advertising execs, just get that company into the news somehow and you will get yourself a free advert on Wikipedia. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 04:03, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * "Wikipedia, the free business directory that anyone can edit." -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 04:03, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, one news story isn't enough :) Three is my usual threshold.  Two if its the NYT or something.  But where have you been?  Wikipedia has been a free business advert for at least 5 years now...  Th e S te ve   07:41, 30 March 2012 (UTC)


 * That's a pretty low threshold isn't it? There are HUGE numbers of news article created every day on all sorts of obscure topics. Anyways, I been around a while. Seen a lot of stuff. Seen more business article bein written as WP got popular. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 17:32, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, yes it is :D  Th e S te ve   05:21, 31 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment - Per the nomination, How is this topic "non-notable"? It clearly passes WP:GNG, Wikipedia's core notability guideline. Northamerica1000(talk) 02:09, 31 March 2012 (UTC)


 * WP:GNG does not always determine if an article is notable. There are individual notability guidelines that determine the grounds for retention or deeltyion, eg. WP:PROF. There is no guideline for companies so it is up to the consensus that we arrive at here. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:41, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, there is a specific notability guideline page for companies. See: Notability (organizations and companies), which covers both organizations and companies. This topic's notability also passes the criteria on that page. Northamerica1000(talk) 00:36, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Sources that are usually reliable, possibly (though some of them are a bit marginal on the reliability front), but not substantial - they're all basically 'ho ho ho, a jolly cleaning company with a merry gimmick ha ha ha' which is designed as a quick flash at the end of the news rather than being anything serious in the way of informative coverage. And here we are trying to immortalize the firm. Well done the marketing executives. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:35, 1 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Notability (organizations and companies) does not give explicit reasons for keeping. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:32, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I respectfully disagree, see WP:ORGIN, "Notable means "worthy of being noted" or "attracting notice." (et al.) Northamerica1000(talk) 22:59, 1 April 2012 (UTC)


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 05:50, 3 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Clearly passes notability guidelines, with plenty of links provided. Delete-votes are from people objecting to the policy.  If you don't like the policy, I'm afraid you have to change it, not ignore it. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:17, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Not at all, the policies are fine, we just have to obey them. Delete Advertising, whether or not the gimmicks are found amusing (WP:ILIKEIT is no reason to keep.) WP is not a directory of companies and we are not obliged to give space to companies with a clever marketing line, trick, or jingle, even if they have managed to get a few trivial mentions in the press. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:51, 3 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete Fails WP:ORG. The coverage is all from a 5 day period in 2010. The guys likely sent out a press release, which got a surprising splash of coverage including wire services, but it was still just a splash of news coverage. See WP:NOTNEWS. Edison (talk) 14:52, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment – Actually, it's very unlikely that such a small company would receive any coverage at all vis-a-vis just sending out press releases. Rather, the national and international news sources likely picked up upon coverage from Boulder, Colorado and Denver, Colorado news sources, found the topic to be notable and of interest to its respective readership/viewers, and then published their own respective articles/broadcasts. Northamerica1000(talk) 13:17, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment – Also, which part of WP:ORG does the article supposedly fail? It's an entire page of guidelines. After perusing the page, the topic actually appears to pass all of the criterion on this notability guideline page. Northamerica1000(talk) 01:56, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.