Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SiteOne Landscape Supply

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 delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:26, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

SiteOne Landscape Supply

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

SiteOne Landscape Supply (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)

Virtually all coverage is WP:ROUTINE business coverage and PR releases that rely on quotes from the subject and those affiliated with it, that do not meet the depth requirements of the company notability guideline WP:ORGCRITE. I wasn't able to find any non-trivial coverage in an internet search. Of the provided sources, two are borderline-acceptable, but ultimately fall short as well: [1] provides in-depth analysis, but on the second page the author discloses that they were potentially taking a position at the subject within 72 hours of publishing the article, making it possibly not independent (it is unclear if they ever did take the position). [2] provides more depth than most of the PR/routine press, but is primarily an interview, which again raises independence questions (in addition to being published in a publication that also publishes PR releases). Ultimately, even if we take a generous stance on these two articles, the subject doesn't meet the ORGCRITE requirement of significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable, secondary sources (emphasis mine). _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:25, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:33, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:33, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

• Delete Routine coverage. Yip. Entirely generic, non notable. 22:21, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom and above editor. Please note that this was one of a series of articles which were improperly accepted at AfC by a globally blocked and banned sock, User:Frayae.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:12, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
• Delete as a clear and obvious case of a non-notable company. Chetsford (talk) 05:21, 19 November 2018 (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.