Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barker Wentworth

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 redirect to Lobbying in South Australia. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:07, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Barker Wentworth

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

Does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH, confirmed after performing several source searches. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:11, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:11, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:11, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:11, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the fate of this page could be to integrate some of its content into Lobbying in South Australia? The list of staff may be excessive in its detail, but the summary would be worth preserving in my opinion. --Danimations (talk) 16:19, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've copied the lead and activity paragraphs to Lobbying in South Australia and agree that the table of staff is excessively detailed, and does not include enough notable people to be justified. I'm happy for the page to be deleted. If it is, please set up a redirect to Lobbying in South Australia. --Danimations (talk) 17:28, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lobbying in South Austraila also has not one independent, secondary, RS. I don't see a Lobbying in Australia article, maybe start there, using Category:Politics of Australia as a source for text and citations. Mnnlaxer (talk) 04:17, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:29, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Lobbying in South Australia as suggested, my searches found absolutely nothing to suggest this has received good coverage. SwisterTwister talk 21:11, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:CORP. looks like an advert. LibStar (talk) 07:26, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
KeepThis isn't an example of corporate puffery, it's actually some good detective work in tracking down the various corporate influencers of contemporary political decision-making in South Australia. (I haven't commented earlier because I have met User:Danimations once, although he hasn't yet participated in any Adelaide Wikipedia Users Group meetings that I've organised. However, I do admire the work he has been doing on quite a number of different articles on environmental topics and issues in South Australia, particularly the one on the Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission.)

Regarding the relative lack of sources on Barker Wentworth, I'm not surprised that I hadn't heard of them earlier. It's the modus operandi of lobbyists to work outside of the glare of publicity; and in a city where News Corp has a complete monopoly of the national, metropolitan and local print media (for the benefit of those editors who lack any local knowledge, Adelaide is the very place where Rupert Murdoch began his media empire), it hasn't been too difficult for them to fly under the radar. The one group of lobbyists which does get some media attention is Bespoke Approach which consists of ex-politicians of various persuasions, one of whom was in fact a frequent columnist for the aforesaid News Corp metropolitan daily.

Barker Wentworth, by contrast, seems to be the company favoured by professionals in the corporate sector. In this example, which seems to have been missed by Danimations, I note that, according to his bio, this person was earlier both a director of Barker Wentworth, and COO of (Canadian-owned) Bight Petroleum at a time when the latter company was seeking approval for seismic surveying in the Great Australian Bight near Kangaroo Island, which attracted quite a bit of community opposition at the time, and remains controversial. Bahudhara (talk) 16:42, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If they operate in the dark, they may remain there, without an article here. Also see WP:OTHERSTUFF and WP:COATRACK. The two sources linked above as "approval for seismic surveying" and "remains controversial" do not mention the subject. Kraxler (talk) 17:09, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Given User:Bahudhara's contribution above, I would like to see the article kept and expanded to better explain its importance to South Australia. Clearly this is possible, in light of the Bight Petroleum example above. --Danimations (talk) 06:24, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You, as the creator of this article, should expand then, not ask somebody else to do it. But don't forget to add reliable sources which are independent of the subject. Kraxler (talk) 17:11, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:CORPDEPTH, "sources" are related to the subject (including own website), directories (including LinkedIn) or trivial mentions. Web searches turn up more directories, news and books yield nothing. Kraxler (talk) 17:09, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr^\ talk / 10:51, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Appears to be nothing more than an advert or promotion. A Google search found no evidence of coverage in reliable independent sources. It does not meet the notability guideline for corporations and therefore fails WP:CORPDEPTH. AuthorAuthor (talk) 14:44, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think Bahudhara made as strong an argument as possible, but it still does not convince me. It is a good argument for why the topic should have reliable coverage, but it does not change the fact that such coverage does not, in fact, exist. Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:46, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The current article doesn't have a single, independent, secondary RS. Pure WP:PROMOTION and PERMASTUB. Mnnlaxer (talk) 04:02, 30 June 2015 (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.