Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/4cabling


 * 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 merge to Nicole Kersh. T. Canens (talk) 00:19, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

4cabling

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

An advertorially toned page on an unremarkable private business; significant RS coverage not found. Fails WP:NCORP / WP:CORPDEPTH. Created by Special:Contributions/KerriZ with few other contributions outside this topic. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:39, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Should be redirected to Nicole Kersh. There's certainly no need for two articles pertaining to a small company. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:08, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 04:29, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 04:29, 11 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep, and merge Nicole Kersh into it. The company seems to have enough coverage in independent sources to meet WP:CORP. The WP:CORPDEPTH is more than just superficial, with a bunch of the sources referenced in both this article and the Nicole Kersh article being specifically about the company, and some other not referenced articles in SmartCompany, BRW, and Fin Review about it. The Nicole Kersh article doesn't really contain content unrelated to the company so it would be appropriate to merge it into the 4cabling article. Kb.au (talk) 07:30, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Change to Merge with Nicole Kersh, either way. Kb.au (talk) 06:19, 28 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Nom's comment -- I nominated the Kersh article as well; please see Articles for deletion/Nicole Kersh. I don't believe that the sourcing in the company article meet WP:CORPDEPTH; if there are specific examples of such coverage, I'd be glad to review them. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:35, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * What do you find wrong with this or this or this? They look like reasonably good sources to me. I agree that merging the two articles would be a good idea; but merging in which direction I'm not certain. ~Anachronist (talk) 01:50, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * These are still unsuitable sources; samples:
 * [Kersh] founded the business seven years ago and says it is now turning over about $8 million a year. (...) "That's why we stood up and took notice when, a few years ago, a guy started up a competing business", she said. Source #1 above
 * Gernis managing director Jonathan Maister told SmartCompany he “struck a deal” with Kersh for the business after a mutual contact indicated the young entrepreneur was interested in selling all or part of the company she founded when she was 21 years old. (...) “We love the culture,” says Maister. source #2
 * These sources are based on interviews with company execs and are not intellectually independent of the subject. Please see WP:CORPDEPTH. With $10M in revenue, the company is too small to presume notability and such sources are insufficient for encyclopedic content. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:16, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:36, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I would argue that most company and founder coverage is based on interviews or information from the companies themselves. The difference is, these articles aren't interviews, they constitute reporting based on an interview, and that's an important distinction. If the publication has a reputation for fact checking and accuracy, there is no problem with publishing quotations that the publisher has vetted. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:27, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Good point. Unscintillating (talk) 06:55, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * For an article like that to be acceptable, it must demonstrate intellectually independent analysis and/or opinion - which these articles don't.  HighKing++ 22:52, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Merge to Nicole Kersh. This article is short enough that it would fit nicely into the bio. There is sufficient independent coverage by reliable sources for both subjects. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:29, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep without prejudice to a merge either way. As per Kb.au and Anachronist.  Unscintillating (talk) 06:55, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   22:04, 18 January 2018 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete or Merge. There are no indications of notability for this company and despite the Keep !votes above, once again there appears to be a fundamental misunderstanding among some editors on the differences between sources that meet the criteria for establishing notability of an organization and the *lower* standard of sources required for citations to support facts or information within an article. In order for references to meet the criteria for establishing notability, they must be intellectually independent - broadly speaking, this rules out references that are largely based on company announcements, hiring and firing news and references that rely extensively on interviews and quotations from company employees or related companies. Effectively that rules out all of the sources provided. I looked at the AfD of Nicole Kersh and the references that nudged that article to a Keep decision are all based on interviews. While references like those may be used to satisfy the criteria for notability for people, it specifically fails the criteria for organizations. Merging this content to Kersh's article appears like the sensible thing to do (perhaps one day WP:PEOPLE will also exclude references extensively based on PRIMARY sources from the criteria for establishing notability).  HighKing++ 22:49, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   09:10, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Seriously? Re-list? There is clear consensus for a merge; with every commenter either in favor of it or mentioning it without objection. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:17, 26 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Seems to be a consensus for merge, as Anachronist has said. Kb.au (talk) 00:06, 27 January 2018 (UTC)


 * 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.