Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The White Company (retailer) (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 keep. Partly for the procedural reasons, but mainly because it seems like not all sources cited by SoWhy have been called unsuitable to establish GNG notability. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:02, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

The White Company (retailer)
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

no evidence for notability -- refs are just PR and notices  DGG ( talk ) 18:47, 14 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Question: Considering the last AFD (with basically the same deletion rationale) closed as unanimous keep less than a month ago, why do you feel the guidance at Renominating for deletion or WP:ATD do not apply here? Also, why do you think renominating for deletion instead of adding the sources mentioned at the last AFD was preferable? Last but not least, how was WP:BEFORE followed in this case? Regards SoWhy 18:59, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Since no one else bothered to do the actual work after AFD #1 ended, I have now added the sources mentioned there to the article. Regards SoWhy 20:36, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep the last AFD was in January. The result was keep. The retail chain hasn't suddenly become less notable. Loads of sources with substantial coverage identified during the last nomination. Why are we wasting time on another? FloridaArmy (talk) 19:24, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Its is well established brand with high revenue AyaanLamar (talk) 20:21, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you, AyaanLamar, for participating in this AfD. Thank you, also, for creating your account earlier today.  Always happy to have new editors on the project.  -- RoySmith (talk) 22:22, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. Neutral. Let's look at those references cited in the last AfD (there certainly aren't any references in the article establishing notability):
 * Obvious press release is obvious. Supplying pillows to an airline does not establish notability.
 * A trade magazine reporting on the profits of one of the businesses in the trade. News flash! https://cbwmagazine.com/ just reported that Martin West is Great Britain’s new Sales Director for Scania Bus & Coach!! --Guy Macon (talk) 20:40, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Obvious press release is obvious.
 * Oh boy! They are opening up a new store in NYC! If that doesn't make them notable I don't know what will!!
 * Another obvious press release about supplying pillows to an airline.
 * ] ..and yet another obvious press release about the store in NYC. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:40, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Even if you were right, why would deletion be preferable to merging/redirecting to Chrissie Rucker per WP:ATD? Regards SoWhy 21:14, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
 * because she is not notable either. OBE is not enough for notability,  DGG ( talk ) 00:08, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I disagree, she clearly meets WP:BASIC at the very least. But as long as her article exists, redirecting/merging would always be the better option. Since you have come back to this nomination btw, would you mind answering my question above why you felt it necessary to renominate this less than a month after the last AFD closed without addressing any of the reasons why the article was kept the last time? Regards So<b style="color:#474F84; font-variant:small-caps">Why</b> 08:12, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 15 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep. I find it tiring that nowadays "it's a press release!" without proof is deemed sufficient to delete articles about notable subjects. When we no longer accept The Times or The New York Times as reliable sources, what is left? There are dozens of sources about the company and its founder just a short Google search away:
 * But of course, when you just claim they are not reliable, what can one argue against it? Regards <b style="color:#7A2F2F; font-variant:small-caps">So</b><b style="color:#474F84; font-variant:small-caps">Why</b> 09:01, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * But of course, when you just claim they are not reliable, what can one argue against it? Regards <b style="color:#7A2F2F; font-variant:small-caps">So</b><b style="color:#474F84; font-variant:small-caps">Why</b> 09:01, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * But of course, when you just claim they are not reliable, what can one argue against it? Regards <b style="color:#7A2F2F; font-variant:small-caps">So</b><b style="color:#474F84; font-variant:small-caps">Why</b> 09:01, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * But of course, when you just claim they are not reliable, what can one argue against it? Regards <b style="color:#7A2F2F; font-variant:small-caps">So</b><b style="color:#474F84; font-variant:small-caps">Why</b> 09:01, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * But of course, when you just claim they are not reliable, what can one argue against it? Regards <b style="color:#7A2F2F; font-variant:small-caps">So</b><b style="color:#474F84; font-variant:small-caps">Why</b> 09:01, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * But of course, when you just claim they are not reliable, what can one argue against it? Regards <b style="color:#7A2F2F; font-variant:small-caps">So</b><b style="color:#474F84; font-variant:small-caps">Why</b> 09:01, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * But of course, when you just claim they are not reliable, what can one argue against it? Regards <b style="color:#7A2F2F; font-variant:small-caps">So</b><b style="color:#474F84; font-variant:small-caps">Why</b> 09:01, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * But of course, when you just claim they are not reliable, what can one argue against it? Regards <b style="color:#7A2F2F; font-variant:small-caps">So</b><b style="color:#474F84; font-variant:small-caps">Why</b> 09:01, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * But of course, when you just claim they are not reliable, what can one argue against it? Regards <b style="color:#7A2F2F; font-variant:small-caps">So</b><b style="color:#474F84; font-variant:small-caps">Why</b> 09:01, 15 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete That's funny because I was only thinking to myself that I find it tiring that nowadays reasons such as "but look at all the times it gets mentioned", without bothering to check if it meets the criteria for establishing notability, is trotted out at practically every company-related AfD. This is little more than another version of WP:GHITS only instead of listing the total, some of the links are posted instead. Articles like this one from telegraph.co.uk and and this one that you posted above, filled with intellectually independent gems such as "The White Company said", "the company said", "In a further change set to be announced today", "The group said", "Mrs Rucker said", "Ms Alford-Burnett said", "The group said", "The retailer said", Tpatricia Alford-Burnett, managing director, said", etc. Seriously, the criteria for establishing notability are there for a reason - one of them being to avoid relying on PRIMARY sources (whether published in reliable secondary sources or not) as sources to establish notability. You also appear to suggest that editors claim the sources are not reliable - again I believe that demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding (on your part) on what the intention of the criteria for establishing notability says and what editors who are following those guidelines are saying. None, as far as I can tell, are saying that the sources are not reliable. What is being said is that an article based extensively on a company announcement or press release is considered to fail the criteria for establishing notability, regardless of whether it is published in a reliable secondary source with no corporate connection with the topic company. None of the references produced meet the criteria, the references fail WP:CORPDEPTH and/or (more often) fail WP:ORGIND. Topic therefore fails GNG and WP:NCORP <b style="font-family: Courier; color: darkgreen;"> HighKing</b>++ 10:00, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Which basically proves my point. "Fails WP:CORPDEPTH / WP:ORGIND / WP:NCORP / WP:GNG" is the most standard !vote in such AFDs and rarely really fits. WP:GNG says [i]f a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list and all three requirements are fulfilled here:
 * Even you agree that the sources are reliable, so that is not problematic.
 * Per GNG's definition, "significant coverage" is all coverage where the topic is directly covered in detail. That's the case for example with    and others.
 * A source is considered "independent" if it has no vested interest in a given Wikipedia topic and therefore is commonly expected to cover the topic from a disinterested perspective. Independent sources have editorial independence (advertisers do not dictate content) and no conflicts of interest (there is no potential for personal, financial, or political gain to be made from the existence of the publication). That certainly applies to The Times, The New York Times, The Telegraph or The Financial Times.
 * So at least some of the sources are suffient to establish notability per GNG which is why while I'm always happy to discuss such issues rationally, I fail to see how GNG is not met in this case. On a side note, you also failed to answer the question why WP:ATD is not preferable even if you were right. Regards <b style="color:#7A2F2F; font-variant:small-caps">So</b><b style="color:#474F84; font-variant:small-caps">Why</b> 11:14, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Minor correction: Re "None, as far as I can tell, are saying that the sources are not reliable", The Daily Mail is unreliable as a source for anything -- see WP:DAILYMAIL, and Drapers Online is not reliable for establishing notability, because they will gladly cover any company in the fashion business, no matter how obscure. Yet these were touted as evidence of notability in the first AfD and nobody bothered to check them. That's reason enough to post a new AfD in my opinion. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:07, 15 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep per this news search and per SoWhy. Mary Homer went to run it, giving Sir Philip Green a bloody nose over it. Frankly this AfD smacks of systemic bias, as I don't think the average Wikipedian is interested in fashion and shopping, or seeing how women can do a better job of running a large organisation than men. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  11:25, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Paging AfD #1 participants :, , , and  <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk)  <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  14:44, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * You forgot as nominator. Regards <b style="color:#7A2F2F; font-variant:small-caps">So</b><b style="color:#474F84; font-variant:small-caps">Why</b> 14:47, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Good point, well made. (I intended to ping everybody; the fact that most people !voted "keep" is coincidental). <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  14:49, 15 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep nothing has changed. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:52, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep WP:BEFORE #B4: "Read the article's talk page for previous nominations ..." Andrew D. (talk) 15:10, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep Clearly meets GNG.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:26, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep Can confirm it's a well-known business. Blythwood (talk) 20:38, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment are we done here? This looks like a remarkably short-sighted nomination, especially given that the last AFD was concluded less than three weeks ago.  I'm shocked that the nominator is a member of Arbcom, I had expected these elected individuals to know better than to disrupt Wikipedia to make a point.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:53, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The last AFD was concluded less than three weeks ago with very little evidence of notability. While the consensus is clearly to keep, the evidence is still marginal. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:42, 17 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep just survived an AfD a couple weeks ago and article has been even further improved since with sources showing WP:N. SportingFlyer (talk) 21:02, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep as per the previous afd and the above arguments. Some of the sources are press releases but a lot are not. Notability is clearly proved Dom from Paris (talk) 18:09, 16 February 2018 (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.