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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:08, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Motorcheck[edit]

Motorcheck (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)

Seems to barely meet WP:GNG, but I am not convinced that the subject meets WP:ORG. There is significant coverage from news outlets like the Irish Times, but they were mostly commentary made by Michael Rochford, the director of the company, which does not establish the notability of the subject itself. Alex Shih^Talk 09:36, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Motorcheck (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Company provides meaningful primary source insights into the automotive industry. Where this is commentary it's data-driven and unique commentary. This has been used by national news used data provided by Motorcheck to add substance and support coverage of an ongoing investigation into the automotive CPC industry in Ireland. There are further examples of media coverage beyond those supplied in the article already. Google News searches for the last few years will show these. Jennahowl^Talk 11:29, 11 September 2017 (GMT)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:35, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:45, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

After further research using Google Scholar, I've discovered that motorcheck.ie and their research has supported scholarly works. I've added a "further reading" section to reference these papers to add to article's notability as per the info box atop the page. Jennahowl^Talk 16:50, 12 September 2017 (GMT)

• Delete -- an advertorially toned page on a private company that does not meet WP:NWEB or WP:NCORP. Insufficiently notable as a publisher of sales data either. To establish notability here, the article would need to provide sources that discuss Motorcheck as a source rather than merely listing articles using it. I was not able to find SIGCOV to meet GNG either, so delete. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:43, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -- Company has received significant press coverage to pass SIGCOV. Disagree with previous comments regarding notability especially as the company has been cited within scholarly articles. The article can be an important hub of research for readers looking for further information on the Irish motor industry. Topperpartdeux (talk) 10:42, 20 September 2017 (GMT)

• Comment -- Thanks for your feedback - K.e.coffman. The further reading section now includes scholarly works which cite motorcheck as a primary source of industry research. SIGCOV over the past few years is available to meet GNG through searching Google News Ireland. Jennahowl^Talk 10:35, 14 September 2017 (GMT)

• Delete There are no in-depth intellectually independent references that meets the criteria for establishing notability. Getting name-checked in a national newspaper because a quote was provided and published in the article fails WP:CORPDEPTH and is most definitely not SIGCOV by any stretch of the imagination. What is required is an intellectually independent reference (actually, two) that provides in-depth information about this company. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 18:57, 22 September 2017 (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.