Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jardine Motors Group (2nd nomination)


 * 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 __EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. After two full relistings, no consensus for a particular outcome has ensued. North America1000 15:27, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Jardine Motors Group
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

I've looked through all of the sources and there was nothing secondary or tertiary in sight. WP:NCORP says there needs to be multiple articles in reliable secondary or tertiary sources covering the organization in significant depth to meet the notability requirements for businesses, otherwise you just end up with spammy brochure pages like this one. BigheadBigheadBighead (talk) 09:10, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Hong Kong,  and United Kingdom. AllyD (talk) 13:37, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment this company was recently acquired by Lithia Motors (press release) and if there isn't sufficient coverage that is probably a redirect target. Most of the references in the current article are completely useless. Walt Yoder (talk) 15:46, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment: Pinging Articles for deletion/Jardine Motors Group participants:, , , , and . Cunard (talk) 07:18, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Support redirect to Lithia Motors per Walt Yoder's suggestion. I can't find any significant coverage on the Internet.BigheadBigheadBighead (talk) 10:46, 28 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Whilst I agree about the unsatisfactory nature of the current article, we have the problem that the group was claimed at one time to be the largest automative retailer in the UK, and it also contains reference to the predecessor Lancaster group. Time has moved on, and we don't know that the brand will even survive following the latest takeover. WP isn't simply as directory of things that are currently of interest, but seeks to deal also with the past, including things that no longer exist. I am concerned that a redirect will lose that. The problem we have with the requirement for coverage in multiple secondary and tertiary sources is that just these arguments have also been used to argue for deletion of articles about major brands widely recognised nationally and even internationally, and even companies with turnovers in the many billions. The difficulty is about the nature of media coverage, especially in Europe. Aside from direct quotes from or reworking of press releases the only coverage is often when a company fails. The requirement for truly independent coverage is often an illusion anyway, since the only sources about finances, employees, and often operations necessarily come from the company itself and are merely repeated even if the writer has no connection themself.
 * I have no personal knowledge of the company and am certainly not going to die on this hill. But the very fact that this was apparently the largest UK automotive group (and there is no reason to doubt it) and Google is not able to provide further help (probably because most sources are deleted) both demonstrates why WP is needed and the danger of too rigorously applying the rules where notability is in the past. AJHingston (talk) 12:41, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:27, 4 April 2023 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star   Mississippi  21:04, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. The article contains facts about the company such as how the business started and developed plus info. on brands and dealerships. Don't see a promotional tone. There are independent reliable, secondary sources already cited in the article such as Yorkshire Post, The Lawyer, AM Online, Financial Times (offline), Motor Trader.com (selective). However, quite a lot of the material could do with better sourcing. Agree with AJHingston's insightful and eloquent comment above, including the reason why a redirect is not the right outcome.
 * Plenty of ongoing coverage here . Also, this from Car Dealer Magazine . Most sources naturally include quotations from the company, but editorial comment and fact checking remains; one has to be selective in choosing which articles to cite content from. I see sufficient, indepth, independent coverage in reliable secondary sources to pass GNG/NCORP. Rupples (talk) 05:13, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Redirect to Lithia Motors as per the Acquisition Notice above. This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. In plain English, this means that references cannot rely *only* on information provided by the company - such as articles that rely entirely on quotations, press releases, announcements, interviews, website information, etc - even when slightly modified. If it isn't *clearly* showing independent content then it fails ORGIND. From the references I can access, I'm unable to locate a single reference containing "Independent Content". Rupples above lists various references without specifically pointing out what content within those article meets our criteria. I can't see anything that does.
 * There's two from The Yorkshire Post but they don't appear to be accessible. They both appear to be regurgitated PR judging from the headline - perhaps Rupples can let us know what's in those articles?
 * TheLawyer article mentions two lawfirms that "have both landed roles on Jardine Motors Group's acquisition of car dealership Wayside Group". It's PR from the lawfirms with zero in-depth information on the company.
 * Two from AM Online. The first is a list without providing a single word about the company. The second is a puff profile on Nick Lancaster - again with zero "Independent Content" and zero in-depth information about the company.
 * The Financial Times article is about the parent firm with not even a mention of this topic company
 * There's 16 Motor Trader references and they are all regurgitated PR. Without exception.
 * None of the reference in this refbombed article meets GNG/NCORP criteria for establishing notability. From my own searching, I could only find a self-published book containing a case study and some mentions-in-passing. Redirect seems to be the best option.  HighKing++ 17:02, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Haven't seen the offline Yorkshire Post articles so unable to judge the amount of coverage therein. Whether any of the sources 'individually' amount to significant coverage is open to debate. Wikipedia contributors have differing interpretations of what significant coverage amounts to, as witnessed in many AfD discusions.
 * I pointed out the ongoing coverage in AM Online. AM Online counts as a single source so facts can be elicited from any of its articles on the company, not just one. For me, this source includes sufficient editorial commentary on the company (additional to the director's quotes) on branding policy, financial details, its parent company, no. of employees, history, selected acquisitions, marques etc, to count towards notability. As the article states though, the business has a low profile and so admittedly there's not a wealth of coverage. Rupples (talk) 04:47, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * There are two types of "sources" - ones that are used to support facts/information within an article must meet WP:RS (reliable source). But sources that are used to establish notability must meet extra guidelines (in this case GNG/NCORP). So I'm not sure what you mean by saying that "AM Online counts as a single source so facts can be elicited from any of its articles on the company, not just one" because if you're using sources to support facts within an article, you can use as many as you want from a particular single source even if that amounts to different references. But, if you're trying to say that - for the purposes of establishing notability - you can aggregate multiple articles from the same publisher than that is not correct. GNG/NCORP says that multiple sources are required and MULTSOURCES says that for notability purposes, sources must be unrelated to each other to be "multiple". That isn't taken to mean that different articles from a single publisher/author/etc over any amount of time can be aggregated together to form a single source for the purposes of establishing notability. It is also explicitly addressed by WP:SIRS which says "individual sources" must be evaluated.
 * So, multiple articles published on AM Online does not counts as "multiple sources" for the purposes of meeting the GNG/NCORP criteria that "multiple sources" are required. Nor does it count as a a big aggregated "single source" which then must contain in-depth "Independent Content".
 * Looking at the specific article (archived copy) you've pointed to, this fails ORGIND as it relies entirely on information/quotes provided by the company/executive and has no original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject.  HighKing++ 13:39, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Firstly, hats off to you for such a comprehensive explanation. Although I've read the GNG/NCORP guidelines a few times I'm still confused on certain points. The source evaluation table gives examples of single 'passages' and their impact on notability. What it doesn't do is evaluate the "Examples of substantial coverage" such as ". . . ongoing media coverage focusing on a product or organization" (under WP:CORPDEPTH).
 * My interpretation is that in the current case AM Online is a reliable, independent source providing ongoing media coverage of Jardine Motors. So yes, I am saying that "for the purposes of establishing notability - you can aggregate multiple articles from the same publisher". It counts as one of the sources towards establishing notability. However, on its own AM Online is not sufficient as such coverage would have to be provided by two or more publishers. Rupples (talk) 21:11, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I'll disagree. The context of "ongoing media coverage" in what you've quoted above is just another way of differentiating between companies that hit the news over a single incident or PR stunt or crime or whatever. We're saying we require coverage (sustained over time) focussed on the actual topic of the article (whether that is company or product). So we want out notability guidelines to reflect the fact that there may exist a "flash in the pan" fame - but that isn't sustained and won't establish notability. You'll find the same "limitation" in our BLP guidelines too.
 * I've no issue with referring to AM Online as a reliable (functionally) independent source. Be aware the content must also be "Independent" as well.
 * We can check WP:SOURCEDEF and see that our definition of "source" captures three elements - the piece of work itself (singular), the creator and the publisher. So you'll sometimes find our guidelines using the same work (source) but referring to one of the three possible aspects (article, author, publisher) and the context will (should) assist in determining the meaning - unless someone blatently goes looking for a loophole :-)
 * For example, our definitions of Secondary source and Primary source both refer to a document singular.
 * But for me, this is why WP:SIRS exists. It clearly states that Individual sources must be evaluated" and also says must be a secondary source'' which as we can see refers to a single document. I also note that when we get to various examples, the language changes to refer to a single article or document.
 * Part of the problem here comes from our overloading of the word source to have slightly different meanings - whether it is a single article or whether it is a single journalist or whether it is a single publisher. But at no time does it say anywhere in our guidelines that we can aggregate all articles by a single journalist and treat them as a single article. Taking it to its logical conclusion, that interpretation would mean that, for example, we could aggregate every article from the NYT over decades by different journalists and treat as a single article. This isn't the correct interpretation.  HighKing++ 10:13, 19 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep per the significant coverage in reliable sources provided by, specifically this article in Bauer Media Group's AM-online and this article from CarDealer. Although the sources include quotes from people affiliated with the subject, there is enough independent reporting to meet Notability (organizations and companies), which requires "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject". AJHingston's eloquent comment is a strong argument for why a standalone article rather than a redirect is the right outcome here, particularly since the company has received significant independent coverage in reliable sources. Cunard (talk) 09:04, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Response. As you know the test is not simply "significant coverage in reliable sources". WP:SIRS lays out what is required for each individual source. So after we identify "Independent Content" (ORGIND) we examine that content to see if it is in-depth (CORPDEPTH). The AM-online article relies entirely on quotes and an interview and it is just flat out wrong for you to suggest there sufficient independent reporting or that the article merely "includes" quotes - it is completely reliant on the information provided by the company and the execs and it is clear that there isn't *any* independent content in that article. Everything is attributable to the company. It's not even close. If you believe otherwise, then identify the specific content here and explain why is it *clearly attributable* to a source unaffiliated with the company and why it is in-depth information. As for the Car Dealer article - it is a regurgitation and summary of their annual returns - the original 57 page document can be downloaded here. There's nothing in that article that isn't in the original report. There is zero "independent content" in the article which is "in-depth". The journalist is not analysing/interpreting the raw data - simply summarising/rewording/regurgitating. So again, if you think otherwise, identify precisely the content in that article which you say is first of all, independent content and second of all is in-depth.  HighKing</b>++ 10:56, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * From Notability (organizations and companies): "Deep or significant coverage provides an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization." The sources provide independent commentary about the company. The AM-online articles includes independent commentary about the company:<ol><li>"For a motor retailer of its size – between £825 million and £1.1 billion, depending on the state of the economy – Jardine Motors Group has become used to keeping a low profile. That is about to change."</li><li>"There is good reason for this policy: Jardine Motors Group – at number nine in the new AM100 table – is in a strong financial position and has a global parent of considerable substance."</li><li>His business has kept out of the limelight mainly because of its Asian heritage and ownership, and one reason he wants to move it forward now is because of its franchise mix (see below).</li><li>"It was beyond the imagination of William Jardine and James Matheson that the company they founded would in 2010 be running one of the UK’s biggest car dealer groups. That is because the two Scottish entrepreneurs from the same family went into business in 1832, long before cars arrived. ... And the dream came true because Lancaster held four franchises that are still part of today’s Jardine Motors Group UK. In 1981 Jardine Matheson acquired 76% of the company and took total ownership in 1992."</li></ol> The CarDealer article includes independent commentary about the company:<ol><li>"Jardine Motors Group had an extremely bad 2020, posting an operating loss of £9.8m after making £8.3m profit the year before – despite claiming more than £12m in furlough cash."</li><li>"Jardine – which was founded in 1969 by Nicholas and Ronald Lancaster in East Anglia and has its registered office address in Colchester– now represents 13 brands, including Aston Martin, Porsche, Maserati, McLaren, Jaguar and Ferrari, at more than 50 sites."</li><li>The headline has an independent negative summary of the company: "Jardine Motors Group suffers catastrophic year as £8.3m operating profit slides to £9.8m loss despite £12m-plus furlough support. £2.7m pre-tax profit becomes a £13.9m loss. Turnover at dealership chain sank by a third to £1.36bn. £30m costs review included 522 jobs being axed. Aftersales revenue dropped by 33 per cent."</li></ol>Cunard (talk) 08:05, 21 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Additional source. Independent, reliable, indepth coverage with just brief comment attributed to the company in these articles.. Rupples (talk) 13:38, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Ayres, Chris. "Appleyard sale creates biggest motor retailer." Times, 11 Oct. 1997, p. 29. The Times Digital Archive, [link-gale-com.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/apps/doc/IF0501244564/TTDA]. Plus further comment by Tempus on page 31, which questions the acquisition by Jardine. Rupples (talk) 15:54, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * These are very good finds that briefly attribute the company and include independent reporting about the company's history:<ol><li> The article notes: "Jardine Motors Group, which trades under the Lancaster brand, originated as a family-run dealership in East Anglia and was founded in 1969 by Nicholas and Ronald Lancaster. The Colchester-headquartered group is now an authorised franchisee for more than 20 car premium and luxury manufacturers including Aston Martin, Bentley, Ferrari, Jaguar, Maserati and Porsche and operates from over 70 locations across the country."</li><li> The article notes: "Jardine Motors Group was founded by Nicholas and Ronald Lancaster in 1969. It now represents in excess of 20 car and motorcycle brands, including Ferrari, Porsche, Aston Martin and Lamborghini, at more than 70 locations. ... During 2017 the group continued to invest in its Jaguar and Land Rover dealerships and acquired sites in Bury St Edmunds and Bolton, expanding its presence in the BMW/Mini and Audi market. A new Audi dealership also opened in Bolton."</li></ol> Cunard (talk) 08:05, 21 April 2023 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">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.