Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Werksmans


 * 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. Arguments that meeting WP:SIGCOV is a reason to delete seem particularly unconvincing... (non-admin closure) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:31, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Werksmans

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I see nothing beyond run of the mill mentions in some sources, and a bunch of directory listings. Nothing in the coverage I see suggests that this law firm is somehow noteworthy per CORP. Drmies (talk) 15:34, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:05, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:06, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep: I see an article about a South African law firm that has been in operation since the year 1917. The firm has worked on behalf of multiple noteworthy clients, which the mainstream media has seen fit to memorialize in print. If it were not noteworthy, then the reliable sources would have ignored this firm.  They have not, and so the article should be kept.  I am conscious of Wikipedia's Western-white-male systemic bias, so my only note in the "Delete" column would be that Werksmans is historically a white-male enterprise, so perhaps it should be removed for that reason. - Buckaboob Bonsai (talk) 21:47, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Please really shorten your vote! (this is by far a WP:TLDR rationale), and please don't attack the nominator. And the nominator likely objected to your sources as they all come from the same source and same story from a common wire service.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 23:11, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Reply Thank you for letting me know that. I had no idea that Daily Dispatch and the Sunday World tabloid were the same source. - Buckaboob Bonsai (talk) 02:52, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep - with a bit of digging I found mentions of Werksmans in a few books. Its been around since 1917 and not just your run of the mill firm Gbawden (talk) 07:59, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 * What books? Can you name them or provide any information about them or links? I'

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   10:33, 23 May 2020 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: If there is indeed non-run-of-the-mill coverage it would be useful if someone would present it, or the article is indeed likely to be deleted.
 * Delete I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content. I have located some references from books but they're either articles written by people from the firm (fails WP:ORGIND or mentions-in-passing. I'm open to changing my !vote if someone can provide good references but for now, references to date fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic therefore fails GNG/WP:NCORP.  HighKing++ 20:32, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 01:05, 1 June 2020 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Can someone comment on the new sources please?
 * Keep One of the largest and oldest law firms in South Africa, UCS, please. Easily passes CORP and the GNG.  AfD is not clean up. --Goldsztajn (talk) 12:12, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 06:10, 9 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep Passes WP:CORP. Arguments that the page should be deleted because it's owned by white people (that's a new one) aren't based on any policy. AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 09:33, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment "Arguments that the page should be deleted because it's owned by white people" ... I suspect forgot to add  tags. :) --Goldsztajn (talk) 22:30, 9 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete While the original for the AfD is completely ridiculous, the company doesn't seem notable. On the new sources, they all contain trivial coverage like hiring/firing people and how much they got paid. None of it passes NCORP. Companies hire and fire people and get paid for things. It's in their nature and is pretty run of the mill. The last source in particular is just one dude slandering the company by making accusations and is more akin to a tabloid piece then actual journalism. I'm pretty sure there is a guideline about not using those kinds of sources. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:47, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think you are referring to the four sources I've cited above - do they change your opinion? Similar question to .--Goldsztajn (talk) 22:35, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Hhhmmm, it's weird that you would think that. Since I specifically said I was talking about the new sources. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:06, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment just checking before I did this:


 * Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 07:58, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
 * There's zero way you can say the first source is a pass when it is about staffing and WP:CORPDEPTH specifically says coverage of staffing is trivial. Even more so because it's in relation to staffing problems caused by covid-19. Literally every company in the world has had staffing issues because of it and there's absolutely nothing notable about it. Not to the article is them discussing it. Which also fails the whole secondary thing. The third and forth also fail according to WP:CORPDEPTH because they are about debt and profits. Plus they involve court filings. Which are considered primary. The fact that one of them is from Independent Online is completely irrelevant if the article is trivial primary coverage. So, I completely disagree with your analysis of the sources. Especially the one about covid-19 and staffing. There's millions of articles about almost every company on the planet dealing with that stuff. It's extremely MILL and there's absolutely nothing notable about it as a topic. It also goes against NOTNEWS and probably TOSOON. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:29, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
 * CORPDEPTH notes: Deep or significant coverage provides an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization. All the sources meet that criteria. A discussion about staffing problems is not trivial; the question of employment has been everywhere in the news worldwide - the fact that a large firm is featured in an examination of the issue confirms the firm's notability existed before the outbreak. This is a firm with a 100+ year history, representing clients at the highest levels of South African political economy, we are not discussing some middling run of the mill firm.--Goldsztajn (talk) 10:10, 10 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment Given the comment from above, further sourcing. 2018 reports on corruption investigation in state railways.  2019 report of the head of police corruption body discussing the firm's actions.  Discussion in relation to firm's role with regard to corruption and the South African president. Firm's investigation causes leading South African Newspaper to suspend editor. Investigating firm in one the 10 largest corruption scandals in South Africa of the last decade. Refs indicating status of the firm: "Compared to giants like Werksmans... Werksmans Attorneys (a leading South African law firm)


 * No run of the mill firm has this level of coverage, this level of representation.--Goldsztajn (talk) 10:44, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Re " A discussion about staffing problems is not trivial." It's trivial if your trying to use it as a claim of notability from the Covid-19 outbreak, because again it applies to every company out there. For the same reasons stock fluctuations, expansions, etc etc etc are trivial. For it not to be, it has to be a topic that can't be applied to everyone. The depth of coverage doesn't matter. The uniqueness of the subject does. There's unique about this companies Covid-19 staffing problems compared to those of any other company. Read MILL "Something that is run-of-the-mill is a common, everyday, ordinary item that does not stand out from the rest." Their staffing issues just don't stand out from the same staffing problems millions of other companies are having. Do a search of Google news for "Covid-19 staffing issue." There's millions of results, because it's something that every company is going through and isn't unique to this company. Which is the definition run-of-the-mill and trivial. There is no "depth" clause to that either. A change in stock prices does not suddenly become notable and not trivial just because some reporter who likes to be long winded and use big words decides to write an extra long article about it. Seriously.


 * Also,Your whole thing that "news coverage of the company proves their notability existed before the outbreak" is just bizarre circular reasoning. The news covers things all the time that where not notable before the coverage and most of the time still aren't after. often aren't notable still afterwords. The topic being in the news doesn't mean anything about it's past notability and it's completely nonsensical to claim it does. Notability isn't retro-active (we aren't editing in the past here). The staffing problems at Hammonton Center for Rehabilitation was just featured in a Reuters article due to staffing issues, but that doesn't mean it proves they where always notable, just that the writer at Reuters decided to use them as an example of what they were writing about. That's it. It's extremely ridiculous read into it and claim otherwise. No one at Reuters or anywhere else in the world cared or was witting about the company before Covid-19. Give me a break. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:15, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
 * We differ in opinion; I don't think anything further can be said on this single source that has not already been said. Even without that source, there's another 9 here which clearly show the firm meets the GNG.--Goldsztajn (talk) 13:38, 10 June 2020 (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.