Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Davis & Shirtliff


 * 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   keep. I find a consensus for keep, given the comments of all ivoters, although the author(s) should take into account Kudpung's relevant points of view on this article.   Wifione    .......  Leave a message  16:59, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Davis & Shirtliff

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Fails notability at  WP:GNG, WP:NRVE, WP:SPIP, and WP:ORG, The article is a recreation  of a page speedily  deleted some hours previously (Davis & Shirtliff Group). The company may, according  to  unverified claims,   be a reasonably  large retailer in  its  country  but that  alone does not  assert notability. The article reads heavily promotional and a rewrite will probably not  enhance notability. The article only contains links to  its own website for references and an a link  to  Loughborough University  that  does not  meet verification. Repeated further searches for reliable third party coverage have again only revealed  a very  large number of business directory  entries,  B2B sites, and magazine reviews, that all generally reproduce material  submitted by  the company. On various talk  pages, the creator has requested explanations of deletion  policy, but  various editors' recommendations on  improving the article have not  been followed up. Kudpung (talk) 01:31, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  —Kudpung (talk) 01:37, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions.  —Kudpung (talk) 01:42, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions.  —Kudpung (talk) 01:48, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per nomination, fails WP:CORP. Kimchi.sg (talk) 02:13, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Clearly a major company in its field; needs considerable editing to remove promotionalism--I'/ve done some of it.    DGG ( talk ) 03:30, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment This AfD request is not just  about  promotional tone, it  is also  about  notability  and sourcing - two  major criteria for inclusion. Lines 127, 172, 278, 284, 296 298, 482, 585, of the vast 78 page  Loughboro  Uni  research  report briefly  mention Davis & Shirtliff, but  the report  is not  about  the company  of D&L, and they  are only  mentioned in  comparisons with  other suppliers of pumps in  the market,  the prices and stocks of pumps, the local  areas they  serve,  and servicing  facilities.  The research  report  does not contribute to  'significant  coverage' of the Wikipedia article subject, even broadly  construed as a WP:RS and WP:V, and the mentions do  not  add to  the notability  of the Wikipedia article,--Kudpung (talk) 04:20, 1 October 2010 (UTC) Similarly,  line 440 of the 39 page WSP  document  only  carries a brief mention  of the subject, and that  it is a 'successful  company'. It  does not state why  the company  is 'successful' or cite any  figures. The document  is not  about  the Wikipedia article subject, does not contribute to  'significant  coverage' of the Wikipedia article subject, even broadly  construed as a WP:RS and WP:V, and the mention does  not  add to  the notability  of the Wikipedia article. Neither of these citations  make this company  a major player in  the Kenyan economy--Kudpung (talk) 04:40, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Rebuttal: Kudpung appears to have a personal vendetta against this article being published. With regard to your first comment at 00:48 that the Loughborough University link doesn't mention the company, I turn your attention to pages 12, 18, 28, 29, 30, 31, and 52. This article shows the role that Davis & Shirtliff play in providing products to NGOs working to provide potable water to underprivileged members of society at a competitive price whilst also providing the necessary product support. Futhermore, the company Davis & Shirtliff has been recognised by the Water and Sanitation Programme as one of Kenya's most successful suppliers of water related goods and an African success story. Lastly, Kudpung's suggestion that I had ignored various editors recommendations on improving the article is a bit hasty. If you were to look at the timings of the said suggestion you will see that these occurred late in the evening/night. We can't all live in a cyberspace bubble regardless of space and time.

With regard to its content being 'promotional' and not 'notable' I would like to raise the following article on Grundfos which is a large player in the European water industry. There are no references other than a link to the Grundfos website and its content follows similar lines to that found in the Davis & Shirtliff article. Yet it has got away with a slap on the wrist.

I have taken the comments by DGG on board and accept that the article may still be considered promotional and will attempt to increase my resource base to improve the credibility of an article which I believe is important. Swordi 08:17, 1 October 2010 (UTC) —This comment is unsigned by GeorgeVaulkhard (talk) • (contribs) without signing their name using four tildes ( ~ ). Please sign your posts!
 * Comment Alas, pointing to other articles won't help your argument; we have to assess each article on its merits. If the Grundfos article has some flaw, we should try to address that flaw separately (if not, then good for Grundfos). bobrayner (talk) 11:25, 1 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep It was but a moment's work to find articles by four different newspapers which are specifically about the subject, plus a couple of other pages from other websites; I believe this easily satisfies WP:COMPANY: "An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources." I added these to the article and copyedited a little to make it more descriptive than promotional. I would invite Kudpung and Kimchi.sg to reassess their position on notability in light of this change (and DGG's edit); if still unsatisfied, it should be fairly easy to add additional refs. bobrayner (talk) 11:25, 1 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment I have absolutely  no  problems whatsoever reassessing  my  position  on  this AfD if criteria are correctly  met - I've spent  hours trying  to  save it  myself.  I  will  point  out  that the very  famous pump manufacturer Grundfos is not  up  for discussion (see WP:OTHERSTUFF), and it  would be helpful all round if contributors to  this discussion  can leave their emotions out of it, and sign their posts.--Kudpung (talk) 11:23, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:56, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - The coverage by third parties of this company is substantial and indicates passing WP:N and its WP:GNG. Nominating an article that asserts its subjects notability within hours of its creation is rarely helpful. --Oakshade (talk) 02:20, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I will point out (again) that  this article is a recreation  with  just  a slight change of title to  circumvent the rules, of one that  was already speedy deleted for good reason a few hours before,  I  have explained, in detail,  how it  does not comply with the rules for notability. Rather than just  stating 'It complies with the rules", please offer some detailed explanation as to how you  feel it  does.--Kudpung (talk) 01:24, 5 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep: Point taken but article should be kept. - Ret.Prof (talk) 22:21, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Would you care to provide a reason? Generally, unqualified 'keep' or 'delete' !votes don't contribute to building a consensus.--Kudpung (talk) 23:22, 7 October 2010 (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.