Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PostalWatch Incorporated


 * 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 no consensus. Mango juice talk 15:04, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

PostalWatch Incorporated
Non-notable -- and probably defunct -- group. Media references dredged up are all trivial -- the group is NOT the subject -- and all but one from trade publications, to boot. Calton | Talk 08:12, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. While PostalWatch was active, it was taken seriously by the United States Postal Service and other advocacy groups, which is why a journalist researching a story on (say) letter carriers having to work into the evening would find it worthwhile to interview PostalWatch's Rick Merrill for the story. As for the reference to trade publications, these publications have the same commitment to accuracy that daily or weekly newspapers do, and often have circulations larger than many small-town daily newspapers. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 13:09, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * it was taken seriously by the United States Postal Service and other advocacy groups, which is why a journalist researching a story on (say) letter carriers having to work into the evening would find it worthwhile to interview PostalWatch's Rick Merrill for the story.. Noo,that's not how journalism works -- one also has to wonder about the source of your glimpses into the mindset of journalists in general, but never mind -- being a quote mine for a few stories =/= important organization. --Calton | Talk 06:41, 22 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep. Has sources and would be interested to postal service employees.  Alpharigel 20:03, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * As an ex-postal employee, I say no, not really of interest. --Calton | Talk 06:41, 22 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete as per nom. Fails WP:ORG. No non-trivial sources showing encyclopedic notability Bwithh 20:56, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Reliable references and sources (independent trade publications are not trivial) and shows notability. --Marriedtofilm 05:49, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Without even touching the question of whether trade publications are notable, "trivial" here is referring to the coverage. --Calton | Talk 06:41, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * According to WP:CORP, "trival" coverage refers to the like of simply reprinting directory listings, "announcement of club meetings" or "store hours." The articles on this company are long and involved and credit a reporter... not just "store hours". And per WP:ORG, these are not "internal documents". --Marriedtofilm 14:58, 22 October 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.