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: no consensus to delete. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 16:09, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adjusters International[edit]

Adjusters International (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Contested prod. Notability not proved, but the main problem is that the article was obviously written by someone within the company, for the sole purpose of promoting the company. The author has not responded to warnings about COI and spam. Yes, there are references, but I still don't think this passes muster and is besically a puff piece. The main "facts" in the article annot be verified, and comon sense says that only someone with inside knowledge would have access to these "facts."There is not independent verification of these "facts." - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 05:45, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 06:01, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I think that notability is established, but I agree with the nominator that the article appears to have been written by a company employee. If the article survives, it will need copyediting. In general, the assertions in the article appear plausible, but any person or organization considering using this company or any other public adjuster such as should carefully evaluate whether the value that it adds is more than the fee it charges. --Eastmain (talk) 06:01, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• keep. Seems notable enough. Need fixing and clean-up, but not deletion.Yobmod (talk) 11:11, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• keep. The issue has to do with the History...the facts cannot be validated from an outside source. If that was removed would it be ok.AI Shawn (talk) 09:07, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• — AI Shawn (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• • Comment: The above comment was made by the original author. As you can see, he uses the initials "AI" (as in Adjusters International) in his user name. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 13:47, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• keep. I'm curious how small businesses, despite being notable, can verify using solely outside sources. Unlike large entities, they don't have media coverage such as is generated by a Dell or Microsoft. Is this issue addressed somewhere? Judywolf (talk) 09:35, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• — Judywolf (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• • Comment: If they can't be verified, they probably don't meet notability standards. Like this company. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 13:45, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I disagree. Notability has been established (in addition to the work they've done, take a look at the references/publications that quote their executives -- NY Times, Christian Science Monitor, trade journals). I don't think the question should be whether to delete the entry for lack of notability, but rather how to help the author achieve neutrality. My thought is that at this stage, guidance is in order. The author's comments indicate a desire to conform to Wikipedia standards. Any thoughts on how to help him achieve that? - Judywolf (Talk to me) 11:28, 28 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.152.143.130 (talk) [reply]

• Keep. Their work with FEMA seems to have gotten them substantial notability. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:43, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Housekeeping note: Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/AI Shawn - SQL and I think AI Shawn and Judywolf are two different people, but both user accounts have made no edits outside the article and this AFD. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 04:04, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The comments in the sockpuppet discussion prove that the article was primarily written by two employees of the company, and that it is their stated goal to figure out some way to get a Wikipedia article about their "small notable company." Since their information cannot be independently verified and the vast majority of the article is severely compromised, I fel that the remainder of the article is not enough to show that the company is notable. And that's why I nominated this article for deletion. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 05:22, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:COMPANY and WP:V. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:44, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the Orange One. Putting aside the fact that the article as it stands barely avoids speedy deletion, I could find no indication that this company is notable outside of a small local area. The most visible citation I found was this USA Today article, which only quotes their CEO when discussing terrorism insurance. --jonny-mt 04:08, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep they would seem to be far more than local as this claim is made, Adjusters International is the nation's largest claims consulting/public adjusting organization with offices throughout North America at the bottom of this industry journal article here. They certainly get plenty of Google news archive hits [1]. RMHED (talk) 14:37, 6 June 2008 (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.