Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jim Hudson Automotive Group


 * 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. Claims that sourcing meets WP:NCORP to establish notability are not particularly convincing. Consensus seems to be that this is a run-of-the-mill group of car dealerships with no particular claims to notability.  —&#8288;Scotty Wong &#8288;— 06:10, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Jim Hudson Automotive Group

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Promotional article, but not enough in-depth coverage to pass WP:CORPDEPTH.  Onel 5969  TT me 17:10, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions.  Onel 5969  TT me 17:10, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:20, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep, agreed that the article needs rewriting to sound less promotional, but there is already WP:SIGCOV to pass WP:GNG and a quick Google reveals more coverage not yet cited here. NemesisAT (talk) 22:29, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * You need to look at WP:NCORP, not GNG. Also "coverage" doesn't make an organization notable. Can you post a link to a decent reference that meets NCORP here?  HighKing++ 20:18, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete - coverage lacks depth to meet WP:NCORP. MrsSnoozyTurtle 12:18, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bungle (talk • contribs) 17:12, 14 July 2021 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 01:38, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "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. That means, nothing that relies on company information or announcements or interviews, etc. None of the references in the article meet the criteria. They are either standard business listings or short articles based on an "announcement" by the company - all of the articles I can find are within the company's echo chamber and I have been unable to find any "Independent Content" as per ORGIND. Topic fails WP:NCORP.  HighKing++ 20:18, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep I have improved article, removed promotional and un-sourced content and added some new sources. Here are in-depth articles:, , , . I added more, but they are not as in-debth. However, overall this company have many more news in Google news and meets WP:NCORP. Above voters and nominator HighKing, MrsSnoozyTurtle  , Shellwood should revisit their votes.Lesliechin1 (talk) 21:09, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete As explained above, this topic should satisfy WP:NCORP - and CORPDEPTH in particular and - it does not. The sources added here by Lesliechin1 do not satisfy notability criteria. The first two are routine information as delineated by COREDEPTH here. The third source appears to be about the owner of the company. Notability is not inherited and coverage must be about the company itself. I'm not sure the fourth source is actually in-depth coverage of the organization. It gives a brief overview of the company and that is about it. I think User:Lesliechin1 should probably stop advising other editors about their ivote. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 19:55, 28 July 2021 (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.