Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ZoomCare

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) wumbolo ^^^ 20:20, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ZoomCare (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)

Non notable local organization. Extensive references have been added, but they are all either to local newspapers, which are indiscriminate for notability of local organizations, or local business journals which are totally indiscriminate for the notability of anything -- they are a place to publish Press releases , and print anything in the area that is sent to them. DGG ( talk ) 19:18, 7 February 2019 (UTC) DGG ( talk ) 19:18, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep (note: article creator). @DGG: Please stop nominating articles about clearly notable companies for deletion. There's plenty of coverage about this company, which is known by many people throughout the Pacific Northwest region. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:23, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I wouldn't agree coverage across two states is local, at least not in this case. I mean, heck, WA and OR together are bigger than most countries in Europe. The journals are also for major cities, and many could be classified therefore as state-wide or national in their readership, taking them out of "local" classification. The Oregonian, for example, is not a local newspaper any more than that New York Times or Boston Globe. There is press coverage of lawsuits and other negative developments the company I doubt would be happy to have on the page, and so it doesn't reek of promotionalism to me. Not that it couldn't benefit from a cleanup. 66.198.222.67 (talk) 19:51, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exactly. The Oregonian, for example, is the largest newspaper in Oregon and the second largest in the Pacific Northwest by circulation. ZoomCare is not just a local company covered by local journals. And yes, the article needs more work, but I had to scramble to add sourcing because of DGG's sloppy prodding. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:01, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a bad start at all. DGG's nominations tend to be on point, so in this case, I suspect the glut of articles on there that are in fact local didn't help appearances. To help protect from future tags of various sorts, naming and mining some the extra awesome sources and replacing the local ones might do a lot of good. 66.198.222.67 (talk) 20:14, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep. Non-trivial coverage in The Oregonian (many times), the Register-Guard, The Columbian, and other sources of real journalism. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:02, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 21:40, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 21:40, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 21:40, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as notable. I respectfully disagree with the broad characterization of "local newspapers" as unreliable sources. --Lockley (talk) 18:29, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep clearly passes WP:GNG --DannyS712 (talk) 20:50, 13 February 2019 (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.