Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/White Cap Marine Towing and Salvage


 * 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. Black Kite (talk) 23:23, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

White Cap Marine Towing and Salvage

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Despite the local newspaper articles I have my doubts about the notability of this company Gbawden (talk) 11:46, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions.  Rcsprinter123     (deliver)  @ 13:30, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  Rcsprinter123     (confer)  @ 13:31, 5 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. So it's a small, local, business - most marine salvage businesses are local, given their nature. The article meets the requirements of WP:GNG: Clearly has the multiple sources required by WP:SECONDARY, and two sources comply with WP:AUD, if you accept that the New York Times is a national paper, not a local paper. There's nothing about the article that causes it to fall under WP:NOT.  Fiachra10003 (talk) 16:27, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:57, 5 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete - the problem is that the NYTimes article is (quite clearly) from the "N.Y. / Region" section of the paper. It benefits from the rigorous editorial standards of the NYTimes but it is unquestionably local in focus. In that context, the NYTimes is the same as any other local or regional paper covering subjects of interest to locals. It's disingenuous to suggest that local coverage of a local subject is "international" or "national" in that context. The NBC source doesn't even mention the subject - it mentions the owner in the context of an article that couldn't possibly be considered significant coverage of the subject in any context. There's clearly not enough for the subject to pass WP:CORPDEPTH.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 02:36, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Respectfully, the first half of this reasoning isn't consistent with WP:AUD which states that regional sources are acceptable. Besides, NY/Region, essentially the tristate area, covers a population of around 20 million people, bigger than many countries. WP:CORPDEPTH is a somewhat circular standard to use as it simply demands "a level of attention that extends well beyond routine announcements and makes it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about an organization" - i.e. if you can write a decent article on the subject from secondary sources, it passes! Fiachra10003 (talk) 13:16, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, not really. There would be thousands of "Mum and Dad" businesses that have received one-off coverage in the locally-focused regional sections of international papers; those businesses that just happen to be located in regions serviced by international papers - Greater Chicago and the Chicago Tribune, the Sydney Metropolitan Area and the Daily Telegraph, Greater London and the Guardian. Surely your not suggesting that a 3-person business can circumvent WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH if they once (ever) received coverage in the local news section of an international paper. That's absolutely not the spirit or intent of that section and I think you know it.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 18:00, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I did a little more digging and found that they were briefly cited in the WSJ too, again under "NY Region", which suggests that the print article was in the new "Greater New York Area" section of the Journal (unlike the Times, the WSJ doesn't give page refs on the webpage). The fact is that the business has attracted a lot of major media attention.  Probably this is because it's a generally interesting business. Possibly it's because they have hired a PR flack with exceptionally good contacts. I'm inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt. Greetings to you in Australia, by the way - they only have "Mum and Dad" businesses in the fair land of Oz, so you must be from the lucky country!  Fiachra10003 (talk) 19:03, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * My regional idioms must be showing. Yes, you're absolutely right. C'mon, though, there's no way the company has "attracted a lot of major media attention". They got one article in the local section of the NYTimes and passing mentions (some of which don't even mention the name of the company) in some other press. They do interesting work. Interesting does not equal notable. Again, are we really suggesting that local businesses that receive local coverage that happens to be in an international paper meet WP:CORPDEPTH? That was never the intention of that guideline and its a subversion of policies like WP:GNG which are clearly intended to include genuinely notable companies of interest, not companies like this. But hey, you're allowed to interpret policy any way you like. Let's leave it to consensus to decide.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 01:16, 7 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep I started this article and I continue to think the firm merits inclusion. The criteria for inclusion is not whether we personally find a topic interesting, or think it is important.  The basic criteria of GNG is whether references found it notable.  I believe the firm measures up to that standard.
 * Ive written about this before, the time when I attended what I thought would be a really boring talk on the middle ages, that turned out to be fascinating. First the historian spoke about how we knew practically nothing about the everyday life of ordinary people during the middle ages, because those who were literate found their everyday lives so commonplace it never occurred to them to document it, and most aspects of the everyday lives of ordinary people was literally beneath notice, de facto invisible.  He then spoke about analyzing the transcript made by monks who sat beside the torturers, during the inquisition.  He had come across a cache of these transcripts, and they had answered many questions.
 * Today, we are oblivious to much that is around us, information that really is worth documenting, worthy of a standalone wikipedia article, like this firm. Yes, the largest salvage firm in the USA mertis a standalone article.  And when a smaller firm, like this one, has been covered in multiple articles, on multiple occasions, for multiple reasons, I suggest it to meets the criteria for inclusion.  Geo Swan (talk) 17:42, 7 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 06:01, 13 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. Per Geo Swan and Flachra10003. -- do ncr  am  12:58, 18 August 2014 (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.