Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Copart

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) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:30, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Copart (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Totally non-notable company that has received zero significant, sustained coverage in reliable sources. The only reason we can tell this company even exists is WP:ROUTINE coverage in business and securities media, mostly mandatory filings like annual reports. Lots of press releases, and a few lazy newsblog posts that are quick glosses of a press release, mostly dealing with trivial announcements like opening a new office somewhere. There is also no claim to notability: this company is not unique or important, it is WP:Run-of-the-mill. Thus, fails WP:GNG and WP:CORP. Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:39, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 21:21, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 21:21, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The article is in dire need of a trim, for sure. It's full of fluff, and most of the references are unacceptable (first-party websites, press releases, SEC filings, etc). However, there are two very good sources in the article that would support a claim to notability. This Forbes profile of the company is good. This Bloomberg profile is even better: it tells us that the company controls a third of the US salvage market by itself, a result of the company's unique business model. That seems like a claim to notability to me, and the basis for an encyclopedic article. A Train^talk 19:50, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep a public company with a significant market share as confirmed by reliable sources, the Forbes and Bloomberg sources push it past WP:GNG Atlantic306 (talk) 20:45, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The article as it is right now needs a lot of work. The company it self is a significant force in the automotive salvage market. Not unique but also not a standard 7-Eleven either. 2A04:4540:1101:9F01:3DFA:82E9:6E25:D1E6 (talk) 16:17, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.