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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:02, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Woodner Company[edit]

Jonathan Woodner Company (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)

Fails WP:NCORP. Most of the references in the article are URL's which are no longer valid, but from looking at the titles, they're all mostly WP:PRIMARY or not WP:RS. My own searching came up with more of the same; mentions of routine financial transactions and the like, but nothing which talks about the company in the sense that WP:NCORP requires.

I have no idea what's up with the listings of all the court cases. Most of that was added by User:Freebee6713, a hit-and-run WP:SPA who has not been heard from since. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:52, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:52, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delaware-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:55, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. There is enough coverage of the company and its operations in reliable sources. The dead links are annoying but still contribute to notability. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 11:08, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Ageed that there is enough coverage of the company in reliable sources. Definitely notable.- Ret.Prof (talk) 13:52, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• I've summarized the references in the article. Not a single one meets the requirements laid out in WP:NCORP. I've skipped the dead links, since it's impossible to evaluate them. See WP:THREE.

Source	Significant?	Independent?	Reliable?	Secondary?	Pass/Fail	Notes
NYTimes	N	Y	Y	Y	N	Obituary, not about the company
Washington City Paper	N	Y	Y	Y	N	Local coverage of a tenant
Downtown DC	N	Y	Y	Y	N	Doesn't mention the company
Evening Star Building	N	N	N	N	N	Promotional web site
Justica US Law	N	Y	Y	N	N	Routine court filing
Washington Post	N	Y	Y	Y	N	Passing mention
US Courts	N	Y	Y	N	N	Routine court filing
Total qualifying sources					0	Fails WP:NCORP

• Keep, but needs work for sure. Seems to be a part of the collection of page all created on the same day: Ian Woodner, Jonathan Woodner and itself Jonathan Woodner Company, with adjunct page Andrea Woodner created much later. I read enough information on the people pages to understand why the company page might be of interest. -- Nomopbs (talk) 03:19, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per table. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 22:28, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: To add to the table, one of the dead articles is from The Cincinatti Enquirer, but it also only gives passing reference to Woodner. The Keep comments assert that the subject is notable, yet RoySmith exhaustively describes why the current sources do not meet notability guidelines. Moreover, I can find nothing outside of these citations that gives anything more than passing reference to the company. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 04:01, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per the excellent analysis provided in the table above. I am unable to find any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. Reasons such as "might be of interest" and0 "enough coverage in reliable sources" are not enough - the references must also be independent as per WP:ORGIND in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 22:04, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Per the table above, I could not find a single decent quality RS of which this company was the principal subject; zero WP:SIGCOV, and a fail of WP:NCORP. If no material RS wanted to cover this company, why should WP? We end up in a situation where its WP article was the major source of its notability. There is no WP:PRESERVE here, and there are other articles on the family that can cover it. Company is not notable enough to have it's own standalone WP article I'm afraid. Britishfinance (talk) 15:05, 14 June 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.