Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Two Men and a Truck


 * 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. (non-admin closure)  Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk)  09:00, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Two Men and a Truck

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Insufficient sources for notability. WSJ can of course be  a good reference--except that this particular WSJ article does not even mention the company.  DGG ( talk ) 00:03, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 00:21, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America1000 00:21, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 00:21, 21 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep – The topic passes WP:CORPDEPTH per book coverage and coverage in bylined news articles written by staff writers that have been published in independent, reliable sources. Note that regarding the latter, these are not press releases, as evidenced in part by utilizing Google searches using the titles of these article, in which links are only present for these articles themselves, as opposed to press releases, which typically have many links to the same article hosted on various websites.


 * Also keep per WP:NEXIST, because notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article. Source examples include, but are not limited to those listed below. North America1000 00:38, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

 References
 * Foundations of Business. Cengage Learning.
 * The Oxford Handbook of Positive Organizational Scholarship. Oxford University Press. pp. 458–.
 * Basic Guide to Exporting. Government Printing Office. pp. 106–107.
 * Becoming a Trustworthy Leader: Psychology and Practice. Routledge. pp. 165–166.
 * Small Business Management. Cengage Learning. pp. 651–.
 * Service Operations Management. Edward Elgar Publishing. p. 193.
 * Bloomberg
 * The Birmingham News
 * Wisconsin State Journal
 * Beaverton Valley Times
 * Boise Weekly
 * The Wall Street Journal
 * Franchise Times
 * Keep - Clearly meets notability standards. The BusinessWeek reference, for instance, would be sufficient on its own, but the reliable reporting by FAR is not limited to that.  Fieari (talk) 00:49, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment At least some of these are not third party. The author bio in 'Becoming a Trustworthy Leader: Psychology and Practice' is the blurb in a book for one of its contributors. Such blurbs are written by the subject and the PR staff, and are exactly equivalent to the author praising himself on Amazon. DGG ( talk ) 04:05, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I think your assessment of Becoming a Trustworthy Leader: Psychology and Practice is incorrect. Scroll up and down on the 13-page appendix page, which is titled "Appendix A: Leader and Scholar Biographies" and notice all of those names. This is a book about leadership, and the Appendix simply denotes notable leaders in a biographical format. It's quite unlikely that the subject contributed to the book, and several searches did not provide any evidence of this claim whatsoever. The book only has two authors, and in checking it out, it is not written in a format with any guest contributors. North America1000 07:56, 23 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep I read a rather long article about this company years ago (probably in the Lansing State Journal) but that was probably in 97 or so? So I know there is a source out there.  Also  has a decent amount of coverage.   also has a fair bit of detail. Hobit (talk) 21:30, 27 June 2016 (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.