Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Kingfish Company

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. Consensus to delete. Dissenting views mentioned WP:LISTED, but that alone does not establish notability. No sufficiently strong sources seem to have been provided which enable consensus to keep. TigerShark (talk) 02:31, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Kingfish Company[edit]

[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)

Does not fit WP:NCORP or WP:GNG. No RS provided here. Morpho achilles (talk) 09:50, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Netherlands. Shellwood (talk) 10:56, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:LISTED applies to this public company. Company recently changed its name from Kingfish Zeeland, and WP:BEFORE using that name does reveal some potential source material, here, elsewhere. UnitedStatesian (talk) 17:25, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:LISTED isn't automatic; it is only a suggestion that RS exist. The link you provided is not independent at all (it says Client: Kingfish Zeeland). Ovinus (talk) 18:13, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NCORP. Another day, another nomination that looked at references instead of sources. Nominator, please study WP:NEXIST! gidonb (talk) 14:19, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That told him! Although ... which sources in particular? All very well to virtually wag your finger but it is notable that you didn't produce any sources yourself that meet NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:45, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find independent significant coverage in multiple mainstream RS, Dutch or English. "Kingfish Zeeland" seems to be the actual Dutch name, see [1]. [2] (in Dutch) seems okay and is likely independent. Perhaps someone can do a deeper analysis of it. [3] is the best English source I can find, but I don't think it constitutes SIGCOV--it's pretty short and does not discuss the company in detail. There are some specialist publications on the company, mostly from SeafoodSource and IntraFish, e.g. [4], but NCORP explicitly states that trade publications must be treated with great care when establishing notability, and based on the tone of these articles it's unclear whether there's true independence. [5] (in Dutch) doesn't look particularly independent based on Google Translate, but it's hard for me to tell. [6] is similar. If more sources are found, or someone who speaks Dutch has assessed these articles, please ping me. Ovinus (talk) 18:13, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
De Volkskrant (your link 2), a national newspaper, and Provinciale Zeeuwse Courant (your link 6), a regional paper, are independent sources. De ondernemer, link 5, is a website owned by Algemeen Dagblad, a national paper. That said, the author of the pieces in AD and PZC is the same and in the AD piece he states that the information was provided by the company during a press briefing. The piece in De Volkskrant is basically an interview with the owner of the company. So yes, three articles in independent sources based on information provided by the company. Still, I would say it counts as significant coverage by independent sources. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 19:27, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Ruud Buitelaar: Thank you for taking a look! With just these sources, it's borderline, then, because we count sources by the same person as just one. How much editorial oversight do you think there was in the DV piece? Is it mostly a transcribed interview, or is there substantial commentary? Ovinus (talk) 19:50, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Don't forget about WP:ORGIND. Articles must have "Independent Content" so we need to exclude (for the purposes of establishing notability) pieces that rely on company information and interviews (without adding their own analysis/opinion/etc). HighKing⁺⁺ 17:45, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The last paragraph is an ethical comment about this type of fisheries and leaves the reader free to decide. So yes, there is substantial commentary. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 20:02, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
One paragraph of extra commentary following the interview doesn't feel sufficiently substantial for a presumably rather large European company. But hopefully others can weigh in. Ovinus (talk) 20:08, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, on the basis I cannot find any national or regional news sources about The Kingfish Company. Kingfish Maine, cited in a Maine news source, appears to be a subsiduary company, so doesn't count towards notability of The Kingfish Company. There are certainly a number of articles in fish-related news sites, but these are industry specific and not of general interest, so wouldn't help the subject pass WP:NCORP. Sionk (talk) 21:38, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a company therefore NCORP guidelines apply. Perhaps others will have better luck than me but I'm unable to locate anything at all that meets NCORP criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:45, 11 July 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.