Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bespoke Approach

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 delete. Sandstein 09:06, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bespoke Approach

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Clear attempt at an ad as it currently stands. The Drover's Wife (talk) 06:38, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Australia. AllyD (talk) 09:27, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: See this note (which was seems to have been responding to the earlier PROD rather than the present AfD). AllyD (talk) 09:35, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - although the article should be significantly improved to avoid promotionalism, I'm seeing enough significant coverage in reliable, independent sources to meet WP:GNG. The Sydney Morning Herald and Canberra Times articles, plus an Adelaide Advertiser article I found, speak to notability, not to mention the many more trivial mentions in reliable, independent sources. Also seeing some coverage in academic sources (such as this one). —Ganesha811 (talk) 00:01, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The academic paper has only a passing mention. The Advertiser article is 404 to me. The Canberra Times is a couple of passing mentions. That piece is focused on activities of ex-politicians, some of whom are involved in Bespoke, but WP:NOTINHERITED is relevant here. SpinningSpark 15:54, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, it's possible that Ian Smith is notable but that the firm is not. However, as I continue to search, things keep coming up: this article from Crikey, further mentions in the Advertiser (1, 2). (I should note that Crikey seems less than ideal in terms of reliability, however). To me, the Canberra Times article meets the threshold for significant coverage. It's a borderline case, but I still lean keep. —Ganesha811 (talk) 22:52, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: mostly one sided and self promotional. Teraplane (talk) 01:06, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:13, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep: I have previously refrained from commenting due to a COI - I am acquainted with the editor who created the article IRL, as we move in similar circles / community organisations related to environmental conservation and arts events. (Adelaide isn't a huge city, and the number of WP editors here isn't large.)

I'd like to make the following points:

1. For the benefit of non-Australian editors, I can confidently say there is significant coverage of Bespoke Approach in print media. However, both the local daily, The Advertiser, and the national daily, The Australian, are News Corp mastheads which put their content behind paywalls back in 2011. (FYI, Adelaide is where Rupert Murdoch started his now global media empire.) Although I'm not a News Corp subscriber, I do have some older press clippings I can use for refs to improve the article.

2. To those editors arguing for deletion on the grounds of the article being "too promotional", I'd say that their interpretation is, ironically, rather superficial, and misguided. AFAIK the article was started as part of a laudable attempt using published data to map the influence of lobbyists attempting to influence politicians and the general public prior to and during the course of the Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission, which was set up to assess whether South Australia could make megabillions by hosting a global repository for high-level nuclear waste. That idea has been around for some time, e.g. 1, 2.

As the old Yorkshire saying has it, "where there's muck, there's brass". I'm also reminded of the saying attributed to Bismark: "Laws are like sausages, it is better not to see them being made". IMHO, the article throws a much-needed light on some of the sausage-making machinery, and deserves to be retained. Bahudhara (talk) 01:19, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As far as casting light on the issue, this may fall into the WP:ITSUSEFUL fallacy. There are plenty of cases where more information on the activities of advocacy groups could be beneficial to the general public, but that's not necessarily the purpose of Wikipedia. Chagropango (talk) 06:46, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a company/organization therefore WP:NCORP guidelines apply. There are particular criteria for establishing the notability of a company. Also, unless blatantly obvious (e.g. Blog posts, no attributed journalist, Forbes contributors, etc), I'm assuming all the sources are reliable and the publishers are corporately independent from the topic organization - but there's more requirements than just "RS" for establishing notability.

Since the topic is an organization, WP:NCORP criteria apply. As per WP:SIRS *each* reference must meet the criteria for establishing notability - the quantity of coverage is irrelevant so long as we find a minimum of two references that meet NCORP criteria. Each reference must involve deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and also the in-depth information must be "Independent Content". "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.

Clearly the founders/directors have been written about in various articles but the topic is the organization and not the directors. Bahudhara says that there may be references behind paywalls but from the limited access I have to archived newspapers, I am unable to locate any reference that meets NCORP. Happy to reconsider if any good refs turn up. HighKing 19:28, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:17, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even though the article has WP:INDEPENDENT sources such as [[1]] [[2]] it lacks a deep coverage about the WP:ORGDEPTH. The article also has some part of self promotional content Pranesh Ravikumar (talk) 06:25, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete I don't doubt there is lots of press on Bespoke, however the Canberra Times article does not have in depth coverage of Bespoke, so the only independent, reliable, and in-depth coverage currently cited is the Sydney Morning Herald article. If, as Bahudhara says, there are locally available print sources that establish notability, there needs to be some additional verification of this and the editorial quality of those sources. Chagropango (talk) 06:43, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with merge of content & redirect to Ian Smith (lobbyist). It seems to me there are only two references found so far that could potentially meet NCORP criteria: Sydney Morning Herald and Crikey (the Canberra Times and Financial Review articles lack significant coverage). But of the two, the Crikey article is essentially about Ian Smith, not Bespoke. If more significant coverage beyond these two references are dug up, it could meet NCORP clearly but as it stands it doesn't meet the bar. -SpuriousQ (talk) 05:40, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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.