Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Davis & Shirtliff
- 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 keep. I find a consensus for keep, given the comments of all ivoters, although the author(s) should take into account Kudpung's relevant points of view on this article. Wifione ....... Leave a message 16:59, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Davis & Shirtliff (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails notability at WP:GNG, WP:NRVE, WP:SPIP, and WP:ORG, The article is a recreation of a page speedily deleted some hours previously (Davis & Shirtliff Group). The company may, according to unverified claims, be a reasonably large retailer in its country but that alone does not assert notability. The article reads heavily promotional and a rewrite will probably not enhance notability. The article only contains links to its own website for references and an a link to Loughborough University that does not meet verification. Repeated further searches for reliable third party coverage have again only revealed a very large number of business directory entries, B2B sites, and magazine reviews, that all generally reproduce material submitted by the company. On various talk pages, the creator has requested explanations of deletion policy, but various editors' recommendations on improving the article have not been followed up. Kudpung (talk) 01:31, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —Kudpung (talk) 01:37, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. —Kudpung (talk) 01:42, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. —Kudpung (talk) 01:48, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nomination, fails WP:CORP. Kimchi.sg (talk) 02:13, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Clearly a major company in its field; needs considerable editing to remove promotionalism--I'/ve done some of it. DGG ( talk ) 03:30, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This AfD request is not just about promotional tone, it is also about notability and sourcing - two major criteria for inclusion. Lines 127, 172, 278, 284, 296 298, 482, 585, of the vast 78 page Loughboro Uni research report briefly mention Davis & Shirtliff, but the report is not about the company of D&L, and they are only mentioned in comparisons with other suppliers of pumps in the market, the prices and stocks of pumps, the local areas they serve, and servicing facilities. The research report does not contribute to 'significant coverage' of the Wikipedia article subject, even broadly construed as a WP:RS and WP:V, and the mentions do not add to the notability of the Wikipedia article,--Kudpung (talk) 04:20, 1 October 2010 (UTC) Similarly, line 440 of the 39 page WSP document only carries a brief mention of the subject, and that it is a 'successful company'. It does not state why the company is 'successful' or cite any figures. The document is not about the Wikipedia article subject, does not contribute to 'significant coverage' of the Wikipedia article subject, even broadly construed as a WP:RS and WP:V, and the mention does not add to the notability of the Wikipedia article. Neither of these citations make this company a major player in the Kenyan economy--Kudpung (talk) 04:40, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rebuttal: Kudpung appears to have a personal vendetta against this article being published. With regard to your first comment at 00:48 that the Loughborough University link doesn't mention the company, I turn your attention to pages 12, 18, 28, 29, 30, 31, and 52. This article shows the role that Davis & Shirtliff play in providing products to NGOs working to provide potable water to underprivileged members of society at a competitive price whilst also providing the necessary product support. Futhermore, the company Davis & Shirtliff has been recognised by the Water and Sanitation Programme as one of Kenya's most successful suppliers of water related goods and an African success story. Lastly, Kudpung's suggestion that I had ignored various editors recommendations on improving the article is a bit hasty. If you were to look at the timings of the said suggestion you will see that these occurred late in the evening/night. We can't all live in a cyberspace bubble regardless of space and time.
With regard to its content being 'promotional' and not 'notable' I would like to raise the following article on Grundfos which is a large player in the European water industry. There are no references other than a link to the Grundfos website and its content follows similar lines to that found in the Davis & Shirtliff article. Yet it has got away with a slap on the wrist.
I have taken the comments by DGG on board and accept that the article may still be considered promotional and will attempt to increase my resource base to improve the credibility of an article which I believe is important. Swordi 08:17, 1 October 2010 (UTC) —This comment is unsigned by GeorgeVaulkhard (talk) • (contribs) without signing their name using four tildes (~~~~). Please sign your posts![reply]
- Comment Alas, pointing to other articles won't help your argument; we have to assess each article on its merits. If the Grundfos article has some flaw, we should try to address that flaw separately (if not, then good for Grundfos). bobrayner (talk) 11:25, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep It was but a moment's work to find articles by four different newspapers which are specifically about the subject, plus a couple of other pages from other websites; I believe this easily satisfies WP:COMPANY: "An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources." I added these to the article and copyedited a little to make it more descriptive than promotional. I would invite Kudpung and Kimchi.sg to reassess their position on notability in light of this change (and DGG's edit); if still unsatisfied, it should be fairly easy to add additional refs. bobrayner (talk) 11:25, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I have absolutely no problems whatsoever reassessing my position on this AfD if criteria are correctly met - I've spent hours trying to save it myself. I will point out that the very famous pump manufacturer Grundfos is not up for discussion (see WP:OTHERSTUFF), and it would be helpful all round if contributors to this discussion can leave their emotions out of it, and sign their posts.--Kudpung (talk) 11:23, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:56, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - The coverage by third parties of this company is substantial and indicates passing WP:N and its WP:GNG. Nominating an article that asserts its subjects notability within hours of its creation is rarely helpful. --Oakshade (talk) 02:20, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I will point out (again) that this article is a recreation with just a slight change of title to circumvent the rules, of one that was already speedy deleted for good reason a few hours before, I have explained, in detail, how it does not comply with the rules for notability. Rather than just stating 'It complies with the rules", please offer some detailed explanation as to how you feel it does.--Kudpung (talk) 01
- 24, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
- Keep: Point taken but article should be kept. - Ret.Prof (talk) 22:21, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Would you care to provide a reason? Generally, unqualified 'keep' or 'delete' !votes don't contribute to building a consensus.--Kudpung (talk) 23:22, 7 October 2010 (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.