Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Better Bathrooms


 * 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:09, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Better Bathrooms

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This page was pointed out to me by a competitor who is trying to get his own page approved. This page fails WP:CORPDEPTH. It has three sources - one profile of the owner, and two PR distribution sources. It seems that a company with "eight showrooms/trade counters based in England as of February 2015" and only founded in 2001 when the owner started selling taps on ebay, is unlikely to generate enough independent in depth coverage to warrent an article. Legacypac (talk) 08:27, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 08:46, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 08:46, 16 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete: The EliteBusiness interview with the owner is the best of the references, and I am not finding anything better than routine announcements and passing mention. Enough to verify this as a retailer going about its business, but not to demonstrate encyclopaedic notability. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 08:53, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep as per sources:


 * The list can go on and on and on however you get the point and I'm nextremely surprised no one above has found any of this however regardless of that the article subject meets CORDEPTH as well as GNG. – Davey 2010 Talk 13:23, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * seeing as how you went to the trouble of posting all those links, it is only fair to respond. I'll start by saying that the criteria for establishing notability is different than the criteria for establishing facts. You need to pay particular attention to WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND and look for "intellectually independent" secondary and third party sources that provide in-depth information on the company. Also, I won't comment individually on the sources but FYI some of these publications would also fail the "intellectually independent" test as they are either small regional publications or they are industry-specific that rely on advertising (from companies like this one). With that in mind...
 * Fails WP:ORGIND as the survey was carried out by the company (complete with quote from the CEO). It's basically a press release. There's not even any analysis or commentary on the company and the company data/facts were released as part of the "survey".
 * Fails WP:ORGIND for the same reasons.
 * Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. It's a regurgitated company announcement, no analysis whatsoever, not independent.
 * Fails for exactly the same reasons. Also, since BGF is an investor, it is not independent.
 * Fails WP:CORPDEPTH as it is simply a routine announcement of opening a new showroom provided by the company along with photo of the CEO and quotes from company officers.
 * In my opinion, this one in the Daily Telegraph meets the criteria. It is independent and provides relatively in-depth information and facts on the company.
 * Fails WP:CORPDEPTH as it is inclusion in a list of similar companies. Fails WP:ORGIND as the facts/data were provided by the company.
 * Fails WP:CORPDEPTH as it is a routine announcement of hiring.
 * Fails WP:ORGIND as it is an interview with the CEO and not independent
 * Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND as it is not intellectually independent and the facts are provided by the company
 * Fails for the same reason.
 * Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND as it is a company announcement and the facts/data is provided by the company complete with quotations
 * Fails WP:CORPDEPTH as it is inclusion in a list of similar companies, no in depth analysis.
 * Fails WP:CORPDEPTH as it is a routine announcement of hiring.
 * Fails WP:CORPDEPTH as it simply one mention in a different article. Not in-depth, etc.
 * Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND as it is not intellectually independent and the facts are provided by the company complete with photo and quotes.
 * Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND as it is a company announcement about opening a showroom and the facts/data is provided by the company complete with quotations
 * Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND as it is a company announcement about opening a showroom and the facts/data is provided by the company complete with quotations
 * Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND as it is a company announcement complete with photo and quotes from the company
 * Fails WP:CORPDEPTH since the company is mentioned in passing.
 * So our of that lot, in my opinion, we have one source that meets the criteria for establishing notability. We need one more. I can't find another - that company was very good at announcements and PR and generated a lot of "noise" but nothing substantial in terms of coverage as far as I can see. -- HighKing ++ 16:42, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - Having relooked at the sources as well as read CORDEPTH this does indeed fail the latter (As noted by HighKing there's only one source out of 20 that's indepth!), Better off deleted to be honest, – Davey 2010 Talk 17:19, 19 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and GNG. -- HighKing ++ 16:42, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete per above Smallbones( smalltalk ) 03:42, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete -- the sources listed and available are routine announcements, store openings and related news. Do not meet WP:CORPDEPTH. Just a company going about its business. This content can just as effectively be housed on the company web site. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:13, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete, not notable, promotion piece. Fails WP:Corp and should be flushed. Kierzek (talk) 14:20, 23 June 2017 (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.