Talk:Nick Scali Furniture

Not ready for B
I have restored the refimprove template, because the article still has no independent reliable sources per WP:RS discussing anything substantive about the company which are not fed by press releases, or are not purely about money.

Also of high interest are independent reliably sourced news and opinion (by notable authors) about the company's products: new furniture? reviews? recalls? lawsuits won or lost? Has Scali been mentioned in any books? Any pieces particularly lauded for their design, or quality? Awards of any kind? Environmental record? Any major donations? For more, see WP:ORG for notability requirements about companies. I am, in a poorly written way, asking why does this company matter, beyond making furniture and money? Why should it be in an encyclopedia which is not a who's-who of businesses? --Lexein (talk) 18:48, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Disagree and Rationale
Thanks for helping me to improve upon Wikipedia listings. I respectfully disagree with your assertions. The referenced information is derived from security filings, not press releases. Security filings are required to contain strictly accurate information. Security filing will relate partly to finances but that does not invalidate their accuracy.

This company matters since it is an established company in the Australian market that is publicly traded and visited by many consumers. Harvey Norman along with many other furniture well known furniture retailers are in Wikipedia, along with much less established business, it does not seem prudent to remove all such retailers and there is no legitimate reason this company is an exception to the rule. Furthermore, there are Wikipedia category specific pages for retailers in the Australian market.

Of course it is certainly possible that there is information that I do now know about. I certainly appreciate it if you could provide insights as to why this listing should not appear when other companies do appear. Otherwise I see no valid reasons to exclude this listing and/or mark the sources as unreliable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ausresearch (talk • contribs) 00:37, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * (It's more usual to simply indent to reply to a topic). I don't care about any other articles - WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Security filings are all well and good, but they establish nothing but money, and existence, and perhaps growth, but not why the company matters beyond that, and they are filed by the company which makes them WP:PRIMARY sources. Articles here need WP:SECONDARY sources. I made no mention of exclusion or deletion, did I?  I asked for more information, and more relevance. Didn't I? "Mark as unreliable" did not happen. But please note: this Wikipedia article, like an Encyclopedia Britannica article, is not a "listing" - for you to use that word suggests that you fundamentally either do not understand, or do not agree with, the mission of this encyclopedia. See Vonage. See Crocs.  See IBM. These are articles with some meat. (And by the way, relax, "B" or "C" has nothing to do with whether an article is deleted.) --Lexein (talk) 12:32, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I am happy to respect the syntax you prefer, especially since you are a knowledgeable Wikipedia veteran. I understand your point about not caring about other articles - WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. 'Inherit notability appears applicable in this situation. The information also complies with WP:V WP:VERIFY WP:SOURCE


 * Furthermore the secondary sources seem more than appropriate based upon common sense.


 * You make a false assertion that security filings establish nothing but money. Security filing are typically a regulatory requirement to disseminate information to shareholders. A current example of a regulatory filing that refutes your assertion is the information provided by Mark Zuckerberg in the Facebook filings that state his company is about serving the larger public interests rather than producing a profit.


 * There also appears confusion regarding the the definition of the word 'listing'. An entry in an Encyclopedia Britannica article is a listing. Please view the second definition provided by Merriam-Webster. Listings such as those for IBM and other larger, more established companies, will inherently contain more meat and the converse also holds true. I fully understand and agree with the mission of the encyclopedia., it as false assumption to state otherwise, and nothing in my vernacular is indicative of such.


 * I am uncertain why you state, "...relax, "B" or "C" has nothing to do with whether an article is deleted.". I am relaxed, nor is there any implication of the opposite. Furthermore, I never made any previous references to these grades and question your rational for making such a statement.


 * Rather than simply stating your belief that specific items do not meet standards, it seems more productive for the community to actually provide information to improve upon the article. This is of course your prerogative. However, if making unwarranted criticisms to newer member of the community is akin to picking upon the new kid in a schoolyard and in no way furthers the mission of Wikipedia.


 * Your insights as a Wikipedia veteran are certainly appreciated. However, please provide constructive guidance and/or edits, do not make false assertions, and avoid unjustified assumptions. --Ausresearch (Ausresearch) 23:53, 6 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I have not made any false assertions of any kind, and I'm not going to operate under that accusation. You'll get little or no agreement from experienced editors about your insistence on the word "listing." You brought up, without cause, "exclude this listing", "why this listing should not appear", and "remove all such retailers" when nobody was talking about that, so it's obvious why I tried to clarify. I pointed you to appropriate guidelines and policies: WP:V, WP:N, and now WP:ORG. If you don't actually read them for both letter and intent, then nobody else will be able to help you improve the article, because you won't agree with anything they say either. I'll check back in a month. Or not. --Lexein (talk) 06:12, 7 September 2012 (UTC)


 * "Security filings are all well and good, but they establish nothing but money, and existence, and perhaps growth, but not why the company matters beyond that..." - You stated this as a fact (an assertion), as evidenced by the example I provided this is not a fact and a false statement. Hence, you did make a false assertion. I read the guidelines, am more than and happy to listen. However, it is difficult to listen to anyone whom cannot admit they are wrong and reverts to calling a factual statement and accusation. I do not see how that is productive for anyone in the community, nor do I see how your concluding mannerisms are of help either. Ausresearch (talk) 22:17, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

More Info
Added more information about the company with a supporting reference to improve the completeness of this listing. Ausresearch (talk) 05:50, 30 October 2012 (UTC)