Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pirtek

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. Stifle (talk) 13:28, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pirtek

[edit]

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

Pirtek (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

None of the references meet NCORP criteria for establishing notability. A search for references reveals lots of mentions-in-passing or announcements//news relating to the subject's sponsorship in racing but no in-depth information on the company. HighKing++ 20:37, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 5225C, was there any particular reference you think meets NCORP notability criteria? Perhaps I'm missing something. HighKing++ 11:23, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would prefer to see the article deleted because it is frankly undeserving of encyclopaedic coverage, but I have struck my !vote because my core rationale (no significant coverage) is clearly no longer applicable. Whether the coverage is credible enough is a different matter all together and I am not so invested in its deletion to commit to that argument. 5225C (talk • contributions) 13:38, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So to be clear, I have not switch to a keep !vote, I struck my delete !vote because the reasoning for it no longer applies. 5225C (talk • contributions) 13:39, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would also like to note that the page is currently rather promotional and could easily be tagged as such. Gusfriend (talk) 08:16, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have you actually just done a proper search or just looked at the first few pages of a Google search? You need to look at company information sources, magazines, etc. Pirtek is well known and notable in Australia. Deus et lex (talk) 02:55, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • They're largely the same thing. A you would already know, it's impossible to prove a negative, but if you can show me some indication of what these sources are then I will reconsider my vote. Simply asserting there are sources does not do much to prove the subject is notable. 5225C (talk • contributions) 05:37, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I did some digging through the newspapers and found Florida Today [1] (part 1) and [2] (part 2). Southtown Star [3], Evening Standard [4], Arizona Daily Star [5], The Cincinnati Post [6]. There's also Machine Design [7], Inside Tucson Business [8], Bizjournals [9] and [10], Australian Financial Review [11]. There's a lot of passing mentions that come up in my Library and Google searches (and aren't usable for notability purposes so I'm not having them here), but I believe what I posted is enough to meet WP:NCORP. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 10:02, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article expanded significantly since nomination with additional references NemesisAT (talk) 10:23, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment None of the additional references meet NCORP criteria for establishing notability. The added references like the ones linked to by Jovanmilic97 all rely entirely on information provided by the company or by persons who are connected with the organization (eg have taken a franchise) - they fail ORGIND. I can provide reasoning for each reference if required. Most of those references are puff profiles instigated by the company or based on an announcement by the company - there is no in-depth analysis/opinion (of the company) provided by the journalist or someone not affiliated with the company. The volume of references (that don't meet the criteria for establishing notability) doesn't matter - we require multiple (at least two) references that meet the criteria. HighKing++ 11:23, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd like to see this. I am leaning keep but a good source assessment table or something similar could sway me. -"Ghost of Dan Gurney" 15:36, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I'm seeing multiple significant independent coverage in the financial press of business activity and also in the motoring press about their racing sponsorship. Once notability is established they are of course a WP:RS for some aspects of the article. Springnuts (talk) 13:52, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is not a !vote count. There are a number of Keep !votes above and while some reasoning was provided, much of the reasoning is opinion and not based on guidelines. For example, "size suggests notability" and mentions of "sponsorship" do not feature as criteria. Similarly, "well-known and notable" because of their "association with motor racing" with a "should be enough sources to demonstrate notability" gets to the heart of the matter in some respects. We require in-depth "Independent Content" *on the company* and not on the publicity generated by a racing team with their livery. Stating a company is "well known" without providing actual references is not a compelling argument. Commenting that the article has been "expanded significantly" is true (and fair play) but in terms of meeting the criteria for notabality is equally unconvincing unless references it can be pointed out that references were provided that meet NCORP. Essentially, that is what AfD boils down to in most cases. Another editor, GhostOfDanGurney, requested a source table but the basic source table template is for GNG and not NCORP and is therefore largely unhelpful for analysing sources under NCORP. Nevertheless, here is an analysis on the sources (omitting obviously primary sources) in the article.
    • This from Independent is an article on franchising in general (with info provided by the British Franchise Association) that mentions the topic company in the first two paragraphs and again at the end. There's no in-depth information provided in the article beyond the standard description and numbers reported for that year and there is no "Independent Content" provided by the journalist, fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND.
    • Evening Standard reference is about an award provided by the British Franchise Association to the topic company with a good description of the company. Since the British Franchise Association is a "corporate partner" that advertises the topic company's franchise operation, it fails as a source "unaffiliated" with the topic company, fails ORGIND.
    • Wall St Journal article was written in 1993 (notably not attributed to a journalist) relies entirely on this Press release from the Halifax Group the previous day. Fails ORGIND
    • This from Speedcafe discusses Pirtek Racing - an entirely different company that is sponsored by the topic company but omits and in-depth info on the topic company. Fails CORPDEPTH.
    • This from Fox Sports mentions the topic company's sponsorship of the "Pirtek Enduro Cup", fails to provide any in-depth info on the company, fails CORPDEPTH
    • This next from Fox Sports also fails for the same reasons as above - mentions the topic company because of their sponsorship but omits in-depth information about the company, fails CORPDEPTH
    • There's then another bunch of motor-racing themed references. This first from btcc.net, a similar one from Autosport, another from btcc.net discussing the livery of the Pirtek-sponsored cars and this final one from btcc.net as Pirkek "bow out". Then we also have this from speedcafe about sponsorship of NNASCAR Camping World Truck series entry of Austin Cindric and buying the naming rights for a stadium, all fail for the same reasons, no in-depth info about the company, all fail CORPDEPTH.
    • Finally, we're left with these two refs from afr.com. The first, in my opinion, is a "puff profile" which is unfortunately all-too-common. Puff profiles generally follows the same formula and this is no exception e.g. "State Problem, describe bad things about life-without-company, state solution, describe success story, position some vague future growth" and although it includes quotes from the fouders, it is lacking the almost-mandatory photo of the founders. This article is promotional, an ad masquerading as news, fails ORGIND. The second reference relies entirely on a "rare interview" with the 49-year-old director of Pirtek International, private equity firm Vision Capital. Obviously affiliated with the topic company, fails ORGIND.
Based on our guidelines, none of the references meet NCORP criteria. HighKing++ 18:16, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment and note to closer - HighKing, I strongly disagree that the AFR articles are "puff pieces", and I really get tired of when editors malign articles to support their point of view. There is no indication whatsoever that the articles are paid advertising or anything like that (so comments like "obviously affiliated with the topic company" and "an ad masquerading as news" are unsupported claims and entirely unhelpful). There is no Wikipedia policy that interview type articles are not valid coverage of a company. The AFR has always had a significant business section and regularly profiles companies, and it's a reputable newspaper in Australia. These two articles provide independent coverage of the company, and the sponsorship of racing is also a relevant part of their work - there is enough here to support NCORP. Coming from Australia Pirtek is a notable company here and the AFR coverage shows that - something minor or insignificant would not be profiled. Please reconsider these comments (and your support of them too, 5225C and GhostofDanGurney). To whoever closes this, a discussion on sources should not be swayed by unspported claims about puff pieces and the like. There are articles where paid advertising is clear and is the only thing backing up notability, but that isn't the case here. The claim is not persuasive and it's not a good rationale for deletion. Deus et lex (talk) 00:04, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response Nowhere have I associated "puff profiles" with "paid advertising" - that's a connection that might be true in some cases but I would say is not true in the vast majority of cases. Instead it is a label for articles which follow a well-worn structure and rely *entirely* on the company or their execs for the information within the article. Usually all positive (hence the "puff"). It also has nothing to do with the "reputation" of the publication. You say there is "no Wikipedia policy that interview type articles are not valid coverage of a company" and that is true. But, there's a big difference between using a reference to support information/content within an article (essentially, so long as it is WP:RS it is pretty much usable) and using a reference to support notability. It is this second use where references come under additional scrutiny and this is covered in the WP:NCORP guideline. Specifically, the "Independent Content" section of WP:ORGIND unequivocally states that in order for a reference to count towards establishing notability, it must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. If you can point to any part of those puff profiles where the journalist provided information that is clearly unaffiliated with the company, and that this information meets WP:CORPDEPTH, then (and only then) can that reference be used to assist in establishing the *notability* of the company/organization. So, instead of asking the closer to "not be swayed by unsupported claims", you instead need to show that there is in-depth information contained in those articles that can be classified as in-depth material/information containing "Independent Content" - original and independent opinion, etc. If this company was truly notable beyond its involvement in motorsport sponsorship, we should be able to find at least two references that meet our guidelines. HighKing++ 10:32, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - HighKing's assessment of the last two sources in particular are quite convincing at exposing the lack of independence in them and I will support deletion per all of these assessments. Beyond those two pieces, all we really have are "we sponsor a lot of motorsports", which is a fail of WP:INHERITED from a general standpoint, in addition to the relevant NCORP subsection. -"Ghost of Dan Gurney" 20:32, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as the closure was reverted.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:33, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • In response to Deus et lex, simply asserting notability doesn't really do it. The AFR articles, even if they aren't "puff pieces" still don't prove Pirtek's notability. Like you I am also Australian and I had only the vaguest idea Pirtek was a Supercars sponsor. So our experiences are contradictory and neither count for anything when considering Pirtek's notability.. 5225C (talk • contributions) 03:14, 16 April 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Pirtek&oldid=1083906033"