Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Runner Automobiles


 * 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. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 05:13, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Runner Automobiles

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This company is mentioned in a few routine news items such as announcements of opening a showroom or a new product, but has not been the subject of sustained, in-depth coverage, so it fails WP:COMPANY. Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:37, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:20, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:21, 24 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep Two editors have repeatedly added copyright violations and promotional content, so I can sympathize with a desire to punish them by simply deleting the whole thing, but it is a notable company, and an array of other options are available for dealing with disruptive behavior.
 * I'm unimpressed with most of the cited sources, but more than twenty independent, reliable sources containing significant coverage are listed under further reading, and could be used to build a balanced article.
 * The company has been receiving much more than WP:ROUTINE coverage for 15 years, as it has gone from one of Bangladesh's earliest motorcycle assemblers, to one of the country's three or four leading motorcycle manufacturers, to exporter, to automobile retailer, and now to truck builder. Handily meets WP:GNG and WP:CORP. --Worldbruce (talk) 00:41, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * RE: Me punishing the editors? Please assume good faith, and read WP:AGF if you're not clear what that means. If you think I'm disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, please take your case to WP:ANI.There are not 20 independent reliable sources. This is two sentences. It's a WP:ROUTINE announcement, in no way supporting notability as defined at WP:SIGCOV. The second one is a brief, routine announcmenet, and the subject of the article is not Runner. It is an article about Luoyang Northern Ek Chor Motorcycle Company of China. It includes a couple sentences about Runner, about their past association with Luoyang. The third one is an article about the Bangladesh motorcycle industry, that mentions Runner in passing. Again, passing mention fails WP:SIGCOV. Then more routine announcements, more articles not really about Runner. This link is a 404 page not found. Here is a superficial, routine company profile of a mere 186 words. This one is phony article that is a copy of a press release, from here. The "Independent" indeed. This is the SAME press release, passed off as news in a different publication. In fact, 13 of the links on this list are from either the Independent or The Daily Star, and if they are passing off press releases as news, can we seriously accept any of their stories as reliable sources? Even if we do, it's not deep, it's not really about Runner, and it's not significant.WP:CORPDEPTH goes into detail as to why these kinds of weak to fake sources don't qualify as evidence of notability. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:29, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The dead link is fixed now. It's yet another article that is not about Runner Automobiles. It's a general news article about motorcycle sales. Halfway down it drops in a quote from a Runner executive for some POV about the sales trend. Like the others, it only underscores the lack of coverage about Runner itself. Passing mention in many articles with no coverage about the topic itself is a hallmark of a company that fails WP:COMPANY per WP:CORPDEPTH. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:07, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:50, 25 October 2017 (UTC)


 * comment The export story in The Independent is not "phony", or "fake", or a press release. Its origin, as it plainly states, is Bangladesh Sangbad Sangstha, the oldest of the three major news agencies in Bangladesh. It is no more unusual for The Independent to print a BSS story than it is for The Washington Post to print a story from AP.


 * In years of editing Bangladesh-related articles I've never before encountered prnewsbd.com. That, and the fact that their homepage is suspended, suggests that they're one of the country's hundreds of ephemeral self-styled news portals. It is not unusual for such sites to copy content from elsewhere without attribution. Them copying BSS doesn't make the content a press release or make BSS or The Independent unreliable.


 * The Daily Star is the largest English-language newspaper in Bangladesh, arguably the most professional, and the only one with a decent online archive. For those reasons it tends to be cited frequently in Bangladesh-related writing, much as The New York Times is in US-related writing. I haven't taken the trouble of looking  for Bengali-language sources because there is an abundance of English-language ones.


 * The Minister of Commerce doesn't turn up at insignificant companies' factories to tout their achievements. New Age, and The Daily Observer also covered this, and could be added to the further reading. Some papers, such as The New Nation, covered it when it was just a plan, others such as Prothom Alo and The Kathmandu Post covered the trade fair that took place between the planning stage and the first shipment.


 * You are correct that some of the entries in the further reading list are short. That is especially true of the oldest articles, before the company achieved notability. However, at least four of the articles entirely about Runner are significantly longer, at over 400 words each, than what you singled out. Furthermore, WP:CORPDEPTH explicitly says that, "If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability." Even a 186-word article can contribute to notability, although on its own it would be insufficient.


 * Referencing WP:CORPDEPTH, you dismiss the further reading as "weak to fake". However, none of the further reading contains "merely trivial coverage" of any of the types itemized under WP:CORPDEPTH. Coverage of opening a new plant employing 2000, making the leap from assembler to engine manufacturer, taking a private company public, opening a new export market, and going from motorcycles to cars and trucks is in a different league to those examples.


 * You are correct that some of the entries in the further reading list are not primarily about Runner. WP:SIGCOV explicitly says that the company need not be the main topic. It's possible that there's some overlap, such that a couple of the sources could be discarded, but I did not include any article that I did not believe contained something unique - a date, a partner company, a market share, etc. - that would help to build an article greater than a permastub. The further reading addresses the topic directly and (taken together) in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content, as required by WP:SIGCOV.


 * Invariably described in independent sources as a leading motorcycle company in a country of 160 million people, where a motorcycle is analogous to the family car in the West, Runner is the sort of topic one would expect to find in a general purpose encyclopedia. Sources exist that make it possible to write a reasonably complete and balanced article about it. --Worldbruce (talk) 08:01, 27 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep- The company is seems notable and per the argument provided by Worldbruce.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 14:26, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Agree with Worldbruce's explanation of the sources. L3X1 (distænt write)  01:32, 31 October 2017 (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.