Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Insight Terminal 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. RL0919 (talk) 12:21, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Insight Terminal Solutions

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:ORG. Claim to notability appears to be "ITS has played a key role in the Oakland Coal Issue in that it is co-developer of a planned facility called Oakland Bulk and Oversized Terminal." However I couldn't find significant coverage in reliable sources about the company. --Pontificalibus 10:41, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 10:59, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 10:59, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 10:59, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 10:59, 29 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Challenge deletion: this request comes from the same author User:Pontificalibus.  A real search would show that Insight Terminal Solutions is a new company.  Only one year old.  Saying that no "reliable source" reported on it is complete prejudice.  What is a reliable source?  It's more than a media brand, today.  So, the argument for deletion is not valid, to say the least.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zennie (talk • contribs) 18:14, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete: concur with nom, page also reads as an "about us" to me rather than neutral coverage. Also, in response to the article creator's comments above, then if the company is only one year old then it's probably WP:TOOSOON for an article regardless. A reliable source is something that meets the reliable sources policy, and a notable company is one that meets the organization or general notability guidelines. The argument for deletion is entirely valid. creffett (talk) 01:49, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Completely wrong. Again, your arguments hold no water and now I see are obviously very prejudiced. If your take that it's "too soon" have a Wikipedia entry were taken seriously, there would be no entry representing a tech startup.  This flight of whimsy must be put to a stop.  Talk ends now.  Zennie  —Preceding undated comment added 15:39, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, Zennie, any article about a subject whose notability is not supported by sources is usually deleted. Then again, a subject might pop up literally today and get its own Wikipedia article on account of it meeting the required criteria. Simple as that. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 11:34, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 11:39, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete after making the sources less malformed, most of them do not talk about the company currently running the terminal. The ones that do talk about it do so in a passing, trivial fashion.  The sources might support an article on the Oakland Bulk Oversized Terminal, and would probably help squash the rather POV section that currently links to, but they do not support an article on Insight Terminal Solutions. Rockphed (talk) 18:45, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability, topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP.  HighKing++ 22:05, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete per nomination. Subject fails WP:NCORP. Hopefully, a case of WP:TOOSOON and that is a well-intentioned wish. -The Gnome (talk) 11:34, 12 September 2019 (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.