Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Bradfords Group


 * 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. I think some words on the response to Black Kite's relisting are needed here. I am pretty sure that he is fully aware of the guidelines and the responses quoting guideline chapter and verse were uncalled for. He was simply saying that it would be surprising if such a company turned out not to be notable. That seems to me a perfectly legitimate reason for extending the debate. I also want to note that, while I tried not to let this influence my close, my own search of news databases did turn up some coverage. We can at least say that gnews searches are not definitive for establishing lack of coverage. SpinningSpark 17:43, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

The Bradfords Group

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Looks like an advertisement and there is nothing indicating the significance of the article on Wikipedia. Kansiime (talk) 05:13, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

The article was written to inform readers about the incredible history behind the company. The Bradford family and company history have been traced back over 400 years and I feel this is of huge historical interest. 90% of the article relates to the history of the company, so what is it that makes this article appear as an advertisement? I would be happy to amend or improve and welcome your suggestions in relation to this.--Richardrpoole (talk) 08:41, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Since you seem to be making a credible effort to address issues, I left some recommendations at the article's talk page.--Rpclod (talk) 13:48, 1 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment I would have thought that a business this old would be notable, but the article is almost entirely sourced from self-published material: what is needed is substantial independant coverage.TheLongTone (talk) 09:27, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 24 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep - appears notable, although it could do with more independent references. It can be difficult to find published information on company histories, but that does not mean that the subject is unimportant. . . Mean as custard (talk) 08:28, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep More independent references have now been added to validate historical information Richardrpoole (talk) 09:12, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Davey 2010 •  (talk)  02:07, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

 
 * delete This is the very epitome of original historical research. The sources are essentially primary; the resulting material is a WP:SYNTHESIS. Notability is not produced simply because someone can dig out these sources, and indeed, the message here is that this is the routine story of a business which started out as a family concern and grew, modestly, from there. Such companies exist in the millions, and there's nothing here which distinguishes this from the rest of the pack. Mangoe (talk) 12:33, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep -- Far from an ideal article, but a company with 38 branches probably ghas sufficient public profile to need an article. TEchnically the historical aspects may be a variety of WP:OR, but is it suggested that they are false?  WP:V requires that information should be verifable, not that it should be referenced, though being referenced properly is always desirable.  Peterkingiron (talk) 16:23, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 23:42, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

 
 * Delete In agreement with Mangoe - the types of sources used call notability into question while the page is written with what seems like original research and in turn, synthesis. Mediphor (talk) 19:57, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment I have now got a total of 25 reference points to support the history of the family and hope this helps the argument to keep this article Richardrpoole (talk) 17:20, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete per Mangoe. Clearly fails WP:GNG - all sources are primary, if not self-published, and a search found nothing on news, newspapers or Google Books. AdventurousMe (talk) 05:33, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 10:22, 20 August 2014 (UTC)


 * 3rd relist comment. I have re-listed this again as I am somewhat flummoxed by the fact that a company with a 250-year history and over 1,000 employees (I checked that) cannot be notable. So, giving this another week (even though it's probably no consensus anyway). Black Kite (talk) 10:24, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Notability for Wikipedia is not the same as real world importance. From the notability guidelines: "there must be verifiable, objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention from independent sources to support a claim of notability." and "Every article on Wikipedia must be based upon verifiable statements from multiple third-party reliable sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. A third-party source is one that is entirely independent of the subject being covered..." and No original research: "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources." It is isn't a question of whether this is or is not an important company; it is only a question of whether it meets the requirements for inclusion in Wikipedia. I would say that although the early history may warrant original research (and nicely done!), the 20th and 21st century sections should be based on third party information. For that one would look in books or articles about the history of the region, or about the industry itself. My gut feeling is that individual companies reach notability when they do something innovative that changes an industry or a culture, but that most companies are not notable. LaMona (talk) 17:05, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * From the opener to WP:CORPDEPTH "An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. All content must be verifiable. If no independent, third-party, reliable sources can be found on a topic, then Wikipedia should not have an article on it." This article clearly fails that, as there is no significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. There are lots of companies in the UK with long histories, many of them not notable. AdventurousMe (talk) 01:23, 21 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment This is a nice bit of original research, which should be published somewhere reliable so that it could be referenced in Wikipedia. I'm also thinking that a UK history wiki, if there is one, would be a great place for this kind of research. Weak delete LaMona (talk) 16:48, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Question User:Richardrpoole do you have a conflict of interest? Any relationship to the company or the family? I ask because this is the only Wikipedia page you've worked on, and it's all independent research. AdventurousMe (talk) 01:26, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment No conflict AdventurousMe Yes it's the first and it could be the last! I never realised how many hurdles there were to overcome. Still hopeful that it remains live though Richardrpoole (talk) 17:18, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, that's hard on you to have it up for deletion Richardrpoole. The key issues people are having here are that the subject doesn't seem to have attracted significant coverage in books or newspapers, and therefore doesn't fit the criteria for inclusion at this stage. I think LaMona's suggestion that you get the baseline content published somewhere else, or in multiple other places (given you've done all this digging), is a good one. Because at the moment it's original research, which isn't allowed on Wikipedia. I'd also really recommend, given you seem to have a lot of local history and genealogical knowledge, that you contribute by improving other existing pages where you have expertise - Yeovil looks, to my untutored eyes, in need of an update. AdventurousMe (talk) 01:54, 27 August 2014 (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.