Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/USA 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   no consensus. Stifle (talk) 18:49, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

USA Truck

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Nothing of apparent note here. The sources provided are thin: the company's own website, a press release, a general company note on Yahoo Finance and a link to their page on a training provider they partner with. My searches turn up little more: some minor notes on the stock and press releases regarding personell movements. Not notable. SummerPhD (talk) 19:19, 6 July 2010 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:41, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:42, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep: 1980 hits on Gnews.  Dewritech (talk)  15:42, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - I see press releases and stock updates. I do not see substantial coverage (of the company) in independent reliable sources. - SummerPhD (talk) 17:06, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: see Forbes, The Boston Globe, Reuters India, etc.  Dewritech (talk)  20:44, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - All three are stock updates with virtually no information about the company, only the performance of the stock. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:28, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Keep Google News appears to turn up solid coverage, such as USA Truck, Inc. Receives Grainger's 2009 Carrier of the Year Award, USA Truck Comments On Jury Verdict in Contract Dispute, USA Truck Puts Money Where Mouth Is.(Offers highest salaries in trucking industry).  Swarm Talk 09:16, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - Of the three, the last one looks like a source. The first is a file not found that I can't resolve. The second is a press release. - SummerPhD (talk) 10:39, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, lots of press, but nothing I can find that provides significant coverage about the company. Nuujinn (talk) 17:45, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep A lot of their trucks are on the road so there is some reason to keep. I know this is not quoting Wikipedia policy but this is a special point. RIPGC (talk) 05:21, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - As soon as those trucks generate significant coverage in independent reliable sources you'll have a reason to keep. We need sources for the article: sources that are not the company itself, sources that give us substantial information about the company. So far, we can source to independent sources that the company is publicly traded. If we accept your assertion as a reliable source, we could add that they have their name on a lot of trucks. That's not much of an article, is it? - SummerPhD (talk) 13:45, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * If this were a video game, there would be lots of editors editing. There is plenty to write here.  The company's business, management structure, financials, new developments into the company, effects of the recession on trucking and this company in particular.  Delete it if you don't like the way it's written but keep it if the quality of writing is not a deciding factor but rather the potential.  Truck you/Truck me.  Ha ha!  RIPGC (talk) 03:58, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - If this were a video game, we would still need substantial coverage in independent reliable sources. - SummerPhD (talk) 15:20, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 07:02, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - No indication as to what makes this company more (or even as) significant to the next one - coverage not really significant, only what you would expect for a normal company of it's size and age - not worthy of an encyclopaedia entry. Codf1977 (talk) 12:55, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - seems to have ample significant coverage. More to those above are the Wall Street Journal and the Boston Globe.  Regards,    A rbitrarily 0    ( talk ) 18:55, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - Again, the overwhelming majority of those hits are press releases from the company and coverage of the company's stock, not the company itself. That Wall Street Journal link is a company press release, not a WSJ article. The boston.com link (not a Boston Globe article) is about the company's stock. - SummerPhD (talk) 19:11, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I see your point on the Wall Street article. The Boston Globe article, however, is not entirely about the company's stock.  Here's an article from the International Business Times that may be of interest (although it looks like all but the first paragraph is a press release, it's still good information to be aware of and can likely be found in a non-press release form).  This article could be helpful as well.  Here's some company information from the New York Times.  The large quantity of articles covering the company's financial situation (quarter earnings/losses, share prices) is an indicator that the company is fairly notable - for any trucking company that isn't the biggest, there are little ways for it to gain attention any way else.  That said, I believe that there is just enough coverage out there to write a well-sourced and informative article (the attention drawn from business developments is very helpful in this). By the way, is this one a press release?  Cheers,    A rbitrarily 0    ( talk ) 20:46, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Nothing special about this company, not notable enough. Getting some exposure in the business press happens to almost any company. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 00:51, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Looking at some of the links above, do you think that they together meet GNG? Keep in mind that some are press releases.  I based my !vote on the opinion that they did, but there is no doubt I could be wrong.  Regards,    A rbitrarily 0    ( talk ) 02:50, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * keep. Although public stock listing is not a keep ticket anymore (WP:LISTED), I'd give it a chance: an apparently healthy, active medium-sized business ($158M market cap) must have something on it. It's name, perhaps, is googler's worst nightmare, couldn't they invent something odd like Kodak? East of Borschov 07:25, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - Give it a chance? The article has been tagged for sources for over 2.5 years. That it "must" have something on it doesn't mean it does. - SummerPhD (talk) 14:44, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep I fail to see the distinction between newspaper coverage of a company and newspaper coverage of the price of becoming a part-owner of the company --- especially when said newspaper coverage describes an event resulting from stock analyst reports, which are themselves third-party, independent sources about the company. Stephens Inc., referenced in the Boston Globe article, appear to have quite a reasonable amount of coverage of this company: . cab (talk) 13:26, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - Here's the distinction between coverage of the company and coverage of the stock: Coverage of the company will give us the opportunity to write an article on the company. Coverage on the stock will give us "USA Truck is a publicly traded company in the transportation sector, incorporated in Delaware. In the past five years, the company has met earnings expectations in all but three quarters. Two of the quarters it did not meet expectations were due to one-time charges resulting from regulatory changes. USA Truck's board of directors is seated for one year terms, renewed through stockholder votes. At the last board election, 87% of shares voted were voted via proxy..." Don't assume the articles behind the subscription wall are substantially different that what we've already seen here, we have articles of similar merit (actually, WSJ probably is more reliable, but whatever) written for similar purpose. Essentially, you're saying the company is notable because you can buy part of it. Does my supermarket's sales flyer make Green Giant canned corn notable? - SummerPhD (talk) 14:44, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, article makes zero claims of notability. There are many millions of corporations in the world. Encyclopedia articles are about things that are interesting. Abductive  (reasoning) 08:15, 29 July 2010 (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.