Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Olympus Worldwide Chauffeured Services


 * 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. As this article has not been previously deleted I see no need to SALT it. Drop me a note if recreation becomes a problem, though. Jenks24 (talk) 05:05, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Olympus Worldwide Chauffeured Services

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:CORP. Non-notable company that paid for article creation. Article was written by this notorious sock farmer whose various accounts have been blocked over 50 times. Qworty (talk) 06:13, 8 November 2012 (UTC).
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 8 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. Qworty's edits to this article have resulted in a misleading article that does not fully represent whether or not it is notable. I think that anyone reviewing this particular AfD should view this version of the article, which is what it looked like before Qworty removed all of the sources and content. I'll also note that Qworty effectively deleted the article and bypassed Wikipedia protocol when he blanked the article and made it a redirect in this edit. His edit summary, "lack of WP:RS," for that particular and peculiar deletion reflects a lack of sources which was manufactured by the editor. The original article appears to have support from multiple reliable sources. BeyondKneesReach (talk) 02:29, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. And it looks like Qworty has used this deletion via redirect tactic on other pages, including the Murray Horwitz article in this edit. This type of editing seems like vigilante editing and does not help the project reach consensus where consensus is needed. BeyondKneesReach (talk) 02:35, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

WARNING-->BeyondKneesReach is the blocked paid editor who created both articles, and who created this sock farm. As a blocked editor, he has no right to comment here, so I am going to strike his comments. As to his false allegation, I happily submit my editing on Olympus Worldwide Chauffeured Services for open review. As you can see from my edit summaries, every "source" the paid editor provided was either non-WP:RS, or an outright lie, containing none of the supposed information. This person takes money from his clients, lies to them that he can write deletion-proof articles, and then writes extremely poor articles like this one, with false and unreliable sourcing. He often shows up at AfDs to defend his shoddy work, in a demonstration of bad-faith editing that is hostile to the very integrity of Wikipedia. He should leave Wikipedia for good and give all of his clients refunds. Qworty (talk) 23:37, 14 November 2012 (UTC) 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley   Huntley  01:13, 15 November 2012 (UTC)




 * Delete and season to taste - obvious promo-spam relating to a spectacularly non-notable company. Doesn't came anywhere near meeting WP:CORPDEPTH. For the record, I had a look at some of the previous versions ("before Qworty removed all of the sources and content") and it wasn't any better then. Stalwart 111  04:30, 15 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment I am not a blocked editor. I just want the consensus reached here to be based on as much information as possible. To me, the Limousine Digest article that Qworty removed is a WP:RS and people should probably see it, which is why I've provided a link to the old version. I think the short article that Qworty created is maybe appropriate, and I might even be convinced to change my opinion to delete. Either way, the pre-Qworty version is relevant to this discussion. BeyondKneesReach (talk) 05:04, 15 November 2012 (UTC)


 * While the magazine itself might be considered a reliable source, I don't think that article is a particular good example. It's not really "significant coverage" of the subject (though I've seen worse), but it might be useful for verifying the fact that the subject won an award. It's not clear who wrote the prose or when (though I would guess that LD01/12 at the bottom presumably means "Limousine Digest, January 2012"). The language is fairly promotional in tone, though that might not be out of the ordinary for an industry-specific publication with a wish to promote all operators generally. It's not particularly convincing as a source for conferring notability, in my opinion. Stalwart 111  05:40, 15 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete: I tried to find something out there to save this one, but to no avail. Really the only WP:RS out there is the Inc. mention. I did find a few mentions in trade publications, but most of them just referred back to Inc. The aforementioned Limousine Digest article pretty much states this company has fewer than 30 vehicles. Given that they claim to operate in "450 cities in 65 countries," I find that a bit ... bizarre to say the least. Obviously, they're partnering with other companies through a network. Quite frankly I don't have a problem with paid editing in and of itself, but nevertheless one still needs to be mindful of WP:N and WP:NPOV. It appears to me that this job should have been turned down. Faustus37 (talk) 16:42, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. My own attempts to find reliable sources yield only the Inc. mention already linked and other references to/rehashes of it. As Faustus37 does, I find some of the claims to notability difficult or impossible to substantiate. -- Kinu  t/c 19:50, 20 November 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.