Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Safe rides unlimited

: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. Cirt (talk) 05:43, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

=[[Safe rides unlimited]]=

:{{la|Safe rides unlimited}} ([{{fullurl:Safe rides unlimited|wpReason={{urlencode: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Safe rides unlimited}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

Restoring the speedied article and taking to AfD; see [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dank&oldid=294910889#Safe_rides_unlimited my talk page]. - Dank (push to talk) 11:22, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- - Dank (push to talk) 11:26, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Sorry, Delete It seems like a great program, but the criterion for having an article on Wikipedia is notability, based on whether it has received coverage by independent and reliable sources. I don't see anything, either on the group's website, or even a search [http://news.google.com/archivesearch?um=1&ned=us&hl=en&q=%22safe+rides+unlimited%22&cf=all] that shows that articles have been written about it. It seems like a no-brainer for someone there to call the New York Times. It's possible that the group has more business than it has the capacity to handle, and that it isn't seeking media attention; or it's possible that nobody involved in SRI knows anything about public relations. All I can say is, you have to attract notice first, and write an article second, not the other way around. Mandsford (talk) 13:50, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete, It seems like a great program, but google news search shows no hits and a google web search shows 80+ hits. All of the web hits seem to be either community profiles, websites or press releases. There is nothing to show independent 3rd party coverage of the company to satisfy general notability guidelines. A new name 2008 (talk) 16:39, 7 June 2009 (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.