Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PODS (company)


 * 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. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

PODS (company)

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Non notable corporation/business using wikipedia for free advertising Laestrygonian3 (talk) 19:31, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment They have 4 pages worth of complaints at Consumer Affairs, that ought to count for something.Kmusser (talk) 20:44, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Why? That section of the website is not a reliable source - anyone can contribute - and there is no "praise" section there, so the positive aspect can't be shown. Also, others are far worst - U-Haul has 6 pages of complaints! --  Phantom Steve  ( Contact Me, My Contribs ) 12:56, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment How is PODS not a notable corporation/business, and U-Haul, or others are? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.215.154.165 (talk) 20:53, 9 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. PODS seems to fulfill WP:COMPANY; I can find at least two secondary sources about it. The article may be poorly written, but we can take care of that. &mdash;  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 20:56, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep There is some good significant coverage in this USA Today article (the same article was picked up by the Washington Times and others) and even individual franchises have gotten coverge such as here. There has been coverage of complaints about Pods such as this article from the Washington Post picked up by another paper. There is also some more signifcant coverage in an article here (and I am sure there are more examples a google news archive search quite easily found these examples). While the article needs cleaning up I think this adds up to enough to establish notability through coverage in reliable sources. Davewild (talk) 21:04, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep : Notability through derogatory means is notability and makes a good article as would use of topic in B-school or other texts. I assume above comments are accurate, haven't verified existence of documented copmlaints.Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 22:17, 9 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment. If this company is notable for bad business practices, that has to go into the article. There's nothing at the moment. Hairhorn (talk) 22:46, 9 September 2009 (UTC)


 * See also:PODZILLA. If they have made any of the baggage eating handlers that often make news at new airports, nice article coming together LOL :) Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 22:59, 9 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Per Davewild: sources appear to satisfy WP:N. Edison (talk) 00:11, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Seems to be fine, well covered. -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 00:17, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep meets WP:N with reliable sources. --  Phantom Steve  ( Contact Me, My Contribs ) 12:56, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * comment. I tried to edit the promotional language from the article and got a vandalism warning for my efforts, people from PODS are obviously using wikipedia as some sort of brochure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.139.195 (talk • contribs) 17:47, September 10, 2009 — 82.132.139.195 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment the parts you have been removing have been referenced from independent sources. I see no evidence that recent edits have been by someone working with PODS - in fact my impression would be more that you are working for a competitor, and hence your reason for removing sourced information. Unless you are trying to imply that USA Today works for PODS? Or the Honolulu Advertiser? etc etc. --  Phantom Steve  ( Contact Me, My Contribs ) 17:53, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * it is user:Twalters82 who obviously works for PODs that user hasn't edit any other page on wiki except PODs company pages and now edits with an IP that does the same... Are you blind of complicit? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.139.195 (talk) 18:10, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep and close as SNOW - obviously notable from sources and coverage. Canterbury Tail   talk  18:16, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Thatcher 21:01, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * SNOW Keep as an obviously notable company. Also note that File:PODS logo.png is also nominated for deletion. — PyTom (talk) 18:30, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep A notable company backed by reliable and verifiable sources. Why do we allow editors with only a few dozen edits the right to be nominating articles for deletion? Alansohn (talk) 02:15, 13 September 2009 (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.