Talk:PHH Corporation

Speedy deletion contested; evidence within 20 minutes. -WikiSkeptic (talk) 17:16, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As per WP:Notability and http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_%28organizations_and_companies%29 , speedy deletion contested as follows:

"A company, corporation, organization, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject. The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. Once notability is established, primary sources may be used to add content. Ultimately, and most importantly, all content must be attributable."

Coverage in secondary sources for PHH:

The Times: http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/banking_and_finance/article3119954.ece

BusinessWeek magazine: http://www.businessweek.com/investor/content/mar2007/pi20070315_330121.htm?chan=search

CNN: http://money.cnn.com/2007/03/15/news/companies/gecapital/index.htm?postversion=2007031508

Times is highly-respected independent, reliable UK news organization. BusinessWeek and CNN are widely-recognized independent US news organizations.

-WikiSkeptic (talk) 17:24, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Should links to secondary company sites be included as well? If so, the links to the following pages should be included:

PHH Arval -- http://www.phharval.com/ PHH InterActive -- https://interactive.phh.com/ Global InterActive -- https://globalinteractive.phharval.com/

The company I work for is affiliated with PHH and I know for a fact the above sites are extremely useful in finding data related to PHH's business and the fleet management industry in general. Morgan Cohen 15:06, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because <this article has ALREADY been through deletion review.>. — WikiSkeptic (talk) 08:33, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't mean anything. It's an article on a corporation that does not adequately support the fact that there should be a page on it on Wikipedia now.—Ryulong (竜龙) 08:41, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Patent ridiculousness. This is a ONE BILLION DOLLAR company. One Billion Dollars. The fact that the company operates on a B2B front (and therefore does not generate advertising)[see: User:AxelBoldt on advertising's irrelvance to notability) is irrelevant to its notability. Further, edit history clearly shows this was a 24 KB fully-fleshed out entry before a vandal turned it into a stub. -WikiSkeptic (talk) 07:10, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]