Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MetroHorse


 * 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 keep. - Mailer Diablo 15:59, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

MetroHorse
Advertising for nonnotable company/website. Also including duplicate page Metrohorse. NawlinWiki 13:35, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete this and Metrohorse. Non-notable company, blatant advertisement. -- Hús  ö  nd  14:45, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 * KEEP IT ON Known company MetroHorse.com located at 1 University Plaza, Hackensack, NJ 07601 The company was covered and accredited by major publications such as The StarLedger, The Record, NJBiz, New York Post and many others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toledonyc (talk • contribs) (article author)
 * Response Can you provide citations to those publications' references to your company? That might make a difference. NawlinWiki 15:26, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Response  If you google metrohorse you will get all the publications and articles about metrohorse, here I'm attaching one article for your review  http://njbiz.com/article.asp?aid=68106
 * The article you provided does not conform to the criteria established per WP:CORP: "publications where the company or corporation talks about itself [shall not serve as an independent published source] ". The 500 Google results are not convincing me. Anyway the article needs a massive rewrite, it reads like an advertisement.-- Hús  ö  nd  18:03, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 * No, the article is acceptable as a source because it is an independent site. The article includes an interview with a company executive, but this is to be expected. A web page or booklet published by the company itself would not qualify. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 18:34, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Similarly, a press release would not qualify, even if it were reproduced on another company's site, but an article by a staff writer of a news outlet would qualify. -- TruthbringerToronto (talk &bull; contribs &bull; [/wiki/Special:Log/move?user= page moves ] &bull; block user &bull; [/wiki/Special:Log/block?page=User: block log ]) 19:02, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Hmm, you might be right. Ok, I hereby change my stance to Neutral. Will change stance to keep if the article is rewritten. -- Hús  ö  nd  19:27, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Sources demonstrate notability. Article needs to be rewritten, though. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 18:34, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak keep two sources from New Jersey newspapers on a New Jersey based website barely meets CORP. More convincing sources would be best.Arbusto 22:10, 22 September 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.