Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wessex Bristol (group)

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. The "delete" side argues that the sources provided are insufficient, and the "keep" side does not attempt to rebut this. Sandstein 10:28, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wessex Bristol (group)

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject lacks

WP:SIGCOV. From search, results are very scanty, the ones found are not reliable. Sources provided in the page make no mention of the company apart from this one that has few mentions of the company, the rest are listings on Company House website. Lapablo (talk) 15:32, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Lapablo (talk) 15:32, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Lapablo (talk) 15:32, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article, linked to in entry, also mentions the company: [1] The companies own site, is this: [2] And on the Owners Linked In page. [3] (this entry added by Dhutch) Coolabahapple (talk) 14:35, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:53, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non notable company. Devokewater (talk) 18:52, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Zero
WP:MILL from their deals. HAve a feeling that this article was not written in good faith, and is a platform to raise issues on the company (i.e. a hit-piece). Regardless, fail of NCORP. Britishfinance (talk) 19:29, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep A news search brought up some hits such as here, here, here and here. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:11, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: relisting to discuss sources recently brought forth.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 22:53, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I had closed this, evidently very very shortly after Ritchie333 brought some sources up for discussion. Pinging all participants Lapablo, Coolabahapple, Devokewater, Britishfinance. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 22:56, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No problem 78.26. I had seen most of Ritchie333's hits but felt they were more MILL pieces in mostly trade publictions on deals that the company was involved in, and with minimal discussion about the company except to mention their name (i.e. hard to build an article about the company from them). Running through them:

#1 Trade Only Today, trade magazine that only mentions their name once as a buyer of a yacht company, Fairline.

#2 Yachting and Boating World, trade magaine on same deal as above on Fairline, and more like a press release.

#3 The Telegraph, proper RS but the article is about the same deal as above, and only gives the company passing mention; really about the collapse of Fairline.

#4 Furniture News, trade magazine press release from another funiture-related deal.

From my perspective, these are MILL pieces. I could find no decent RS doing even one proper SIGCOV on the company per NCORP, just mentions in mostly trade publicatons from deals. Couldn't see how we could yet construct an article on the company from these. Others may disagree with me however. thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 10:31, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for the ping, i haven't actually participated in this afd, i just fixed up Dhutch's entry that had been affecting the 27 june afd log. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:52, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, before bringing to AFD my concerns were exactly the same as Britishfinance summary of the sources. It's just not enough. Lapablo (talk) 10:27, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, thank you Ritchie333 for highlighting these sources, however I'm in agreement with Britishfinance, the company is not notable and should be deleted. Regards --Devokewater @ 10:12, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What specifically is “not enough”? Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 07:53, 21 July 2020 (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.