Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gascoigne Leather Furniture


 * 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. v/r - TP 21:47, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Gascoigne Leather Furniture

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

DePRODed by creator without  addressing  the issues. Concern was: ''recreation of a previously deleted article. Although this makes claims to importance, no independent 3rd party sources have been suppled that assert notability per WP:ORG. Notability is not inherited from notable customers.'' Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:24, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 12:38, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 12:38, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Comment I didn't notice any qualifying sources on my first run-through when the article was created, but now I found two, in the New Zealand Herald and the Melville Times. Is two a sufficient number? Yes, having famous people among your customers doesn't confer notability. —Largo Plazo (talk) 13:09, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
 * the Melville times is local coverage and looks a bit advertorial, it even gives the company's phone number. LibStar (talk) 23:18, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

How many more references are needed for it to be considered notable?Lucy4962 (talk) 03:40, 11 November 2013 (UTC) — Lucy4962 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * It's not a question  of the number of references. It  depends on the depth  of coverage in  the references and whether the sources are reliable or not. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:03, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Also, to clarify, it wouldn't be a question of how many more because right now there aren't any references to independent reliable sources. The company's own website isn't an independent source, and the other two references given are not sources because the company isn't mentioned at either location. —Largo Plazo (talk) 04:36, 11 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment Someone's added a bunch of fresh references. —Largo Plazo (talk) 12:50, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Analysis of sources:
 * Museum Not reliable. Blog.
 * Comment - this is not a 'blog' but an extract from the Welcome Wall project prepared by the Western Australian State Government — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dan arndt (talk • contribs) 09:26, 13 November 2013


 * Not reliable. Blog.
 * Comment - this is a copy of an article by the Australian Associated Press - Australia's national news agency — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dan arndt (talk • contribs) 09:26, 13 November 2013
 * Agree with Dan arndt unless there's a reason to think the blog invents articles and attributes them to the AAP. —Largo Plazo (talk) 12:31, 13 November 2013 (UTC)


 * BN Not relevant. Does not  add to  notability.
 * Comment - it is relevant to the issue that the facility was subject to a major fire - which alomost resulted in the closure of the business — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dan arndt (talk • contribs) 09:26, 13 November 2013
 * Agree with Dan arndt The site's down for maintenance at the moment but what I recall seeing last night when I looked at it was that the write chose Gascoigne as an example to illustrate the point of the article. —Largo Plazo (talk) 12:31, 13 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Gascoigne website primary source
 * transcript of a day's business in parliament. How much  of this pdf do  we need to  read to find a fleeting  mention?]
 * Comment - if you read the reference citation correctly it indicates the exact page - which indicates that the Minister Gordon Hill considers Gascoigne Furniture to be a significant exporter of Western Australian furniture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dan arndt (talk • contribs) 09:26, 13 November 2013


 * BN extremely fleeting  mention
 * Comment - clearly identifies that Gascoiyne Furtniture is the largest manufacturer of Chesterfield leather lounges in the Southern Hemisphere and exports to 14 countries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dan arndt (talk • contribs) 09:26, 13 November 2013
 * Mildly agree with Dan arndt Again, the BN site is down for maintenance and I didn't check it out before, but this seems significant to me. —Largo Plazo (talk) 12:31, 13 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Melville local news blog
 * Comment - a local newspaper is not a blog — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dan arndt (talk • contribs) 09:26, 13 November 2013


 * The Age possible reliable source
 * Comment - The Age newspaper is a reputable independent source — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dan arndt (talk • contribs) 09:26, 13 November 2013


 * The New Zealand Herald possibly reliable. Not  in-depth  coverage.
 * Comment - reinforces the earlier reference that Gascoiyne Furtniture supplied furniture to Prince Charles from another reputable independent source — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dan arndt (talk • contribs) 09:26, 13 November 2013
 * Agree with Dan arndt on this one, this was a verification source, not a notability source. —Largo Plazo (talk) 12:31, 13 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Stuart Henry transcript  of an after dinner speech by  a local MP. Very  fleeting  mention.
 * Comment - this is an extract from the Hansard Report from the Western Australian State Parliment - not a transcript of an after dinner speech. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dan arndt (talk • contribs) 09:26, 13 November 2013

This looks like the typical result of scouring the internet for anything  that  contains the word Gascoigne and pasting  it  to  the article. I'll leave it  to  the community  to  decide if these sources add to  notability. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:29, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete as per Kudpung's analysis. the sources are very weak and not indepth or reliable. LibStar (talk) 03:51, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

What about if i add photos from the company's relationship with Lady Diana and John Howard? I tried to upload when the article was created but was told the account wasn't old enough etc? Lucy4962 (talk) 06:48, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Not valid, unfortunately. As previously  mentioned, notability  is not  inherited. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:27, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Lucy4962, do you have a connection to the company? LibStar (talk) 10:02, 13 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Lucy, the issue being discussed here is the notability of the company much more than the verifiability of the claims. Even photos of Kim Gascoigne sharing a pizza with Lady Diana and John Howard at a table set up in front of the company's headquarters wouldn't help with the notability question. —Largo Plazo (talk) 12:31, 13 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Borderline keep based on my comments above. —Largo Plazo (talk) 12:32, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep the company is one of the largest furniture companies in Western Australia, with significant international exports around the world. It is a company that is notable for its quality chesterfield leather lounges, with significant clientele. Dan arndt (talk) 14:38, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Clarification User:Dan arndt, FYI, factors taken into consideration in assessing notability for a company don't include the quality of its goods, the fame of its customers, or whether it's one of the largest manufacturers of a particular type of product in a particular political subdivision. Factors that are taken into consideration all have to do with whether the topic has attracted note as shown through significant coverage in independent reliable source. The factors you mention may have led to such significant coverage having occurred, in which case the article is includable on account of that coverage, but those factors don't directly establish notability for Wikipedia's purposes. —Largo Plazo (talk) 15:09, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * In a nutshell: "verifiability, not truth"  is the basic deciding  factor for notability. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:02, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed which is why the references I have added are all from independently verifable sources. Dan arndt (talk) 05:33, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Yrs, Dan, but not even all  verifiable sources are ones that  confer notability. They  must  have in-depth  coverage, and notability  is not  inherited. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:17, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I would have to say that I believe Gascoigne Furniture has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject - therefore confering notability. Significant coverage does mean that it has to be the main topic of the source material. Dan arndt (talk) 08:43, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I believe you meant "does not mean", yes? —Largo Plazo (talk) 13:43, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
 * thanks for the grammar correction, I did mean 'does not mean' Dan arndt (talk) 14:21, 15 November 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.