Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Foremost Group

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. Yunshui ^雲_水 07:46, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Foremost Group (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)

Proposing Foremost Group for deletion because there is no specific news related to Foremost Group. The majority of articles that support this entry only support the Elaine Chao accusations. This belongs on her Wikipedia unless significant support can be found to create content specifically about Foremost Group. I was unable to find anything. And that unsupported line that was recently included is a poor attempt to keep. Where is the History? Financials? Transactions? This entry fails WP:BALASP. And we are talking about Foremost Group, not Elaine Chao.--AhmedFaizP (talk) 00:12, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: The company is also covered in industry sources, as reflected by additional citations I've added. The fact that the article is not well developed yet is a weak argument for deletion. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 00:38, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• +1 to keep, it's not clear why "no specific news" is a good enough case for deletion 204.14.239.13 (talk) 21:08, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Looks like a well-researched article. ubiquity (talk) 21:11, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - The article merely needs filling out. Many articles start out as stubs and in time are added to. Yes, the company is significant because of the Chao connection, but also as one of the many company articles in Wikipedia. Tmangray (talk) 01:45, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 June 28. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:59, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 12:25, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Sources have been found and added that now meet the criteria for establishing notability. Striking previous !vote as per WP:HEY. HighKing⁺⁺ 21:09, 16 July 2019 (UTC) Delete I am unable to locate a single reference that meets the criteria for establishing notability. The references are either based on company announcements (fails WP:ORGIND) or are mentions-in-passing in relation to the link with a US senator Mitch McConnell and his wife. I also note that none of the "Keep" !voters above have provided any additional references nor provided any reasons based on policy/guidelines. Topic therefore fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:22, 29 June 2019 (UTC) [reply]

In fact, I've added quite a few additional references, and more information. Yes, one of the reasons the company is notable is because of its connection to the Secretary of Transportation and her husband, but... how is that notability invalid? The NYT, Pro-Publica, and Forbes articles certainly qualify as "significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable, secondary sources", and they are substantially about the company, not just about her. For example, a multiscreen animated infographic illustrating the company's shipping activity is more than a "mention-in-passing". And the suggestion to fold this article into the Elaine Chao article doesn't make sense, because almost none of this article is about her. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 00:38, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This is line ball but what I'd say is that if people believe it should stay, content should be added to it. If this is all there is, it should go. MaskedSinger (talk) 09:31, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Notability is not inherited, per WP:INHERITORG; half of the references are about Chao and McConnell, and the other half are routine coverage in trade industry publications with a few primary sources sprinkled in (press releases, the documentcloud fact sheet, Chao's own website, Bloomberg Profile). Fails WP:NCORP. Pegnawl (talk) 20:40, 8 July 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.