Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BrandSafway


 * 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. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 16:26, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

BrandSafway

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Google, Google News, and Google Books all return not much but press releases (and rehash), meaning this article topic fails to meet the WP:GNG. Izno (talk) 00:09, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Izno (talk) 00:09, 26 January 2020 (UTC)


 * In case the community/closing admin cares, there are also concerns here of (undeclared) paid editing (I was not the one to assess that). --Izno (talk) 00:16, 26 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 01:11, 26 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Question who eviscerated the article? I prefer to evaluate the article when it was an article and not a sentence as it is now. COI does not necessitate completely erasing. Lightburst (talk) 01:11, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I am the one who removed the majority of the content today because it was not sourced to reliable sources. There might have been content prior that was of actual interest, but the search for sources indicated that there was nothing to see here even without my removals. --Izno (talk) 01:56, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 01:13, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Lightburst (talk) 01:17, 26 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep I started putting the article together. The company is notable and has 114 locations in North America and 253 loactions around the world. They have 38,000 plus employees/associates. The company is valued at over 6.7 billion dollars. The article needs additional work, but it is clearly a pass of WP:GNG. Lightburst (talk) 02:15, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. Notability for companies is based entirely on substantial coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources - not on size, turnover or number of employees. Of the 7 sources in the article as of writing this comment: two are the websites of the company or parents/subsidiaries, the Nasdaq one is simply a syndicated version of the Reuters article (and so in fact the inclusion of it gives a distinct impression of deliberate padding to make the sources appear better than they are), and one is a business directory website. None of those are suitable sources and all should simply be removed. That leaves the original Reuters piece, which is a run-of-the-mill business announcement and offers almost no depth. Finally, the two BIC pieces: one is an interview, therefore not independent, so does little to establish notability. The other is a very brief announcement with little depth. Both would, I think, deserve inclusion alongside better sources but on their own they clearly do not offer ‘substantial coverage’ in ‘multiple’ sources. Hugsyrup 08:55, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I also explicitly considered the sources that Lightburst has added before bringing this article to AFD and identified the same issues, hence why we're here. So, I agree with your analysis. --Izno (talk) 00:23, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep A company worth billions of dollars is obviously notable based on common sense. To claim something is notable if some random reporter decided to choose it to write an article about one day, no matter how small and insignificant it is, but a company worth billions of dollars is not, is simple ridiculous.  The guidelines have a disclaimer at the top which reads "This page documents an English Wikipedia notability guideline.  It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply."   D r e a m Focus  11:36, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * None of our notability guidelines agree with your position. As I said in the nomination, I saw nothing else either in news reports or in books to consider this company in the realm of notable, whatever its revenues or otherwise. --Izno (talk) 00:23, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment According to here they also go by Brand Energy & Infrastructure Services Inc (or they where acquired by them. Its not really clear) and also Safway Group Holding. Which might be why there isn't many article out there when looking for BrandSafway. Although that's just speculation as I didn't check. It could just as likely be that they aren't notable. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:35, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep The subject has a complex history.  It was formed by merger in 2017 and so the name "BrandSafway" is comparatively recent, being derived from the parents "Brand Energy & Infrastructure Services" and the "Safway Group".  The latter started in 1936 as the "Uecker Equipment Company" and was then renamed "Safway Steel Scaffolds" which then became one of the largest scaffolding makers in the world.  The Brand side of the family has an even more complex history, starting when Pitou, Beinecke and Davidson (no relation), founded Patent Construction Systems in 1909 – see the State Library of Massachusetts for details.  A variety of other scaffolding business were acquired and the conglomerate was then acquired by Harsco in 1964 which continued the process of acquisition.  So, we have numerous company names to search for and therefore a naïve Google search on the current title is not enough.  There are substantial and detailed sources about scaffolding and construction such as this and so there is ample scope to develop the topic and its history of over 100 years.  Per our policies WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE, deletion is not appropriate. Andrew🐉(talk) 00:07, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I rather suspect that 'Massachusetts Historical Commission Form B Annex E' is a primary source, and so cannot really be used to establish notability. And even were that not the case, I also do not believe that a historical and architectural description of a building does anything to establish the notability of a company that occupied/occupies it. Hugsyrup 15:24, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * No, the Massachusetts Historical Commission history is secondary as it was written many years after the matters that it describes. And it has an extensive bibliography, giving the sources which were the basis of its research. Andrew🐉(talk) 16:14, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: I originally closed this as "keep", but a participant in the debate would prefer a relist to establish further consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  12:08, 3 February 2020 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   17:42, 11 February 2020 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it.</b> 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.