Country-Wide Insurance Company : BrigadierG ( talk ) 22:01, 20 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Lack of any extensive coverage.  They have a financial rating [2] and gave Trump's campaign money [3] .  Delete for lack of sourcing.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 22:46, 20 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - I was unable to find any reference that meets WP:ORGCRIT .  -- CNMall41 ( talk ) 04:01, 22 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - Lack of reference (reliable source) and notability issue makes it a perfect candidate for deletion!  Ekdalian ( talk ) 14:05, 23 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep due to flawed nomination, since many sources exist for this 60-year old company, which I have added to the article ( WP:HEY ): "No-fault Insurance Law Ruled 'Constitutional'" , (where the company challenged a SCOTUS ruling) "Insurers Ranked by Complaints" "Country-Wide Under Fire From State Insurance Dept" "State Ranks Best, Worst Automobile Insurers" "State Revises Ranking of Insurance Carriers" "A.M. Best Revises Outlook to Negative for New York's Country-Wide" , (a trade journal that goes into depth about the company) As the situation stands now, almost every sentence in the article is backed up by a third-party independent source, and the promotional tone has been completely excised.  Stony Brook babble 17:39, 23 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Regrettably, I think of these, only the last one is a plausible claim to notability.  The additional source search is greatly appreciated, but even by the standards of the time, rankings updates is likely WP:ROUTINE and their involvement in a legal case has a WP:INHERITED issue given that they're only mentioned superficially there.  I don't have an account to access the last source so it's difficult to comment.  BrigadierG ( talk ) 01:43, 25 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Open-access link: https://www.insurancejournal.com/news/east/2017/07/12/457385.htm — Stony Brook babble 04:24, 25 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Unfortunately I think this coverage is also routine.  A change in rating is similar to reporting on a change in stock price which is explicitly covered as not implying notability.  BrigadierG ( talk ) 16:34, 27 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Relisting to review recently discovered sources.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  22:11, 27 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete notwithstanding StonyBrook 's diligent work.  This company is on the edge of notability.  As insurance companies go, it's small: just 250 employees and sales are limited to the New York City area.  What might make it notable are all the negative reports and legal issues associated with this company.  I turned up >50 using the Wikipedia Library .  From a Wikipedia procedural standpoint, while collectively they paint a picture of the company, they're all small news chunks and that's not good enough for our unusually stringent requirements for any articles about companies.  Otherwise, I'd say "keep" because there are certainly enough reliable sources to support an reliable article.  Final comment: I would not buy their insurance.  Ping me if something promising turns up to establish notability.  -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 02:24, 28 August 2023 (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.

Discussion outcome: delete