Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Berkery, Noyes & Co


 * 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   no consensus. ‑Scottywong | verbalize _ 22:11, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Berkery, Noyes & Co

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Relentlessly promotional article created by a persistent COI editor. No real notability here, though the company has received some passing mentions in a variety of unreliable sources. Company has not been the subject of coverage in multiple publications. CitizenNeutral (talk) 02:04, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete - I believe this fails the notability guidelines, and specifically lacks significant, reliable coverage in secondary sources. Had a look through WP:CORP and just can't see how this article's refs meet the guidelines. Went through most of the references. Many are a long way from secondary, and most do not deal with the subject of the WP-article directly. Most refs are about their clients, not Berkery themselves (most mention Berkery, Noyes in passing); For example 1, 2, 3, 4. The article itself is very badly written, and reads like a promotional piece - for example "Berkery Noyes has played a role in the consolidation of the publishing sector by facilitating the growth of large companies such as Reed Elsevier, McGraw-Hill, and The Thomson Corporation". I believe Jansen Noyes, Jr. himself may be notable, but this company is not. - Shudde  talk 10:51, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - The subject passes notability. Regarding references, we're talking about an investment bank here. When compared to similar investment bank entries, it holds up well. Berkery Noyes is mentioned on six other Wikipedia pages. Their reports are cited in strong reliable sources such as the Wall Street Journal and Forbes. Though some sentences need to be revised (such as the one cited above), I would hardly say the entry is overly promotional in tone. It can be improved, but it should not be deleted. - Bernie44 (talk) 06:02, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * According to Notability (organizations and companies) - "An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources." In one of the links you provide the only reference to Berkery, Noyes & Co is "...sponsors poured more than $40 billion into the information industry during 2012, an 11% increase from 2011 according to a new report out from Berkery Noyes", and the second says "...according to new data from Berkery Noyes Investment Bankers,..." and then goes on to discuss some acquisition data on the software industry. In neither of those articles is the company itself the subject of the piece (at all - even for a sentence or paragraph). If those two examples are the best that can be found regarding secondary sources on this organisation then how can an encyclopaedic article about them possibly be written without original research? -  Shudde  talk 07:58, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * As I wrote above, those two references are examples of Berkery Noyes reports being cited in reliable sources, not examples of profiles on the company. The material in this entry is all sourced. What would you consider to be original research? Regarding your hesitation about the company's coverage, it seems the entry and its references compare favorably to those of similarly sized investment banks (such as the ones in the list I linked to above). - Bernie44 (talk) 13:10, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Relying on non secondary sources means that for an article to be encyclopaedic you need OR - this is why secondary sources are a notability requirement. A reliable secondary source still hasn't been provided. Just because other investment banks have wiki-articles doesn't mean this one is notable. You're assuming that the other companies are notable (they may not be), and that even if they are this company is therefore notable (again not necessarily true). - Shudde  talk 21:30, 13 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep - This is a real company with enough of a profile in Bloomberg Businessweek and ancillary mentions in other publications to warrant a start WP article. There is some bootstrapping on their reports, and that's how reputations are made. For someone who has never heard of them, there should be something here.-- Nixie9  ✉  15:11, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment Please keep in mind that the editor who created this article is a persistent COI editor who does not disclose his COI. I understand we should assess his edits from a neutral perspective, but this editor has made it clear he doesn't want to abide by Wikipedia's rules of full disclosure. Regarding the article in question, the company has been mentioned in a variety of sources, but it is not the subject of multiple third party press mentions in reliable sources. A report being cited in a reliable source is a passing mention. If Joe Blow from down the street is interviewed in the New York Times for his perspective on a traffic accident he witnessed, does that make him notable? No. Regarding the Bloomberg Business Week mention: It is a company directory. There are thousands of non-notable companies listed in it. It's not an article, but rather a brief company overview. Why don't we allow people who are searching for this company to find "something" there, rather than in our encyclopedia? CitizenNeutral (talk) 18:58, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Ad hominem comments aren't useful in deletion discussions. It doesn't matter who creates the article. All that matters is if the subject meets the notability criteria and other core policies.  The Blue Canoe  01:30, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:47, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:47, 17 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 19:31, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LlamaAl (talk) 00:04, 26 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Leaning slightly towards keep. There's not a whole lot of coverage in independent reliable sources, but there is some, and it's not all just incidental mentions. Aside from that, everything seems adequately cited and verifiable, and doesn't come across as excessively promotional to me.  The Blue Canoe  01:30, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment Some context: this AfD was created three weeks ago by a new user who, since joining, has been mass-nominating company and related pages for deletion, as well as removing a lot of cited info, showing no interest in making fixes to bring any of these often credible entries up to speed. There have already been several complaints about these overzealous, time-wasting activities on his/her talk page. Excluding the nominator, the Berkery Noyes entry has three votes for keep and one for delete, after being on AfD for three weeks. Bernie44 (talk) 13:44, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment - If we're going to give context then I'd like to add some. While the nominator might have been a aggressive in tagging some articles, they got it right with this one. I came across this AfD randomly, and spent a fair bit of time trying to find a secondary source that mentions Berkery Noyes in more than just passing — and I still haven't. Still — after all this time — no one has been able to provide any evidence this company has been "the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources." (see Notability (organizations and companies)). If someone has come across some evidence of this, then please list it here.
 * Also this isn't a vote, I'd encourage the closing admin to take the notability criteria into consideration over weak arguments. And if is going to have a go at, maybe the closing admin should be aware that Bernie44 is a paid contributor (they outed themselves, for example on their talk-page here), and maybe this should be taken into consideration when giving weight to their argument regarding the notability of pretty obscure companies such as this. -  Shudde  talk 10:08, 6 March 2013 (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.