Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Billingham Bags (2nd nomination)

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. Sandstein 20:27, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Billingham Bags[edit]

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

This articles has been deleted twice before, most recently by myself as a speedy G11. But it was re-written in draft space, and has much better references than any previous version. I'm not however sure about the possible notability of a small manufacturer of this degree of specialization, and I'm not sure whether the articles should still be regarded as an advertisement. I decided that the fairest thing to do was to accept it, and leave the decision to a discussion here. My own opinion is uncertain. DGG ( talk ) 02:03, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 03:10, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 03:10, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 03:10, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning keep - Article reads as neutrally written and factual, and the references are appropriately used. Without having seen what was deleted before, it appears to be an improvement. The sourcing appears sufficient to show notability, albeit in a small/specialist area. But just because something is of very limited range/scope doesn't mean it can't be notable. Not really my area of interest, but I don't have a problem with this article at all. Mabalu (talk) 11:12, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't see that any of the current references constitute the "significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources" required by WP:ORG, and the above Google searches don't appear to give anything better. Of the existing refs, the first and most used (now a deadlink; archived version) is on the site of a company which the article itself says Billingham has collaborated and which (used to) sell their products, so isn't an independent source. The Telegraph Q&A with Richard Hammond doesn't tell us anything about the company, merely that he always carries one of their bags. The other refs are nearly all product reviews which give no significant coverage of the company as opposed to the particular product under review (and several are personal blogs). The only ref that appears to come close is "Billingham marks 40 years of history" in Digital Photography Review, but that's only contains three sentences about the company, clearly based on material in its 2013 catalogue, so isn't really an independent source and certainly doesn't seem sufficient by itself. Qwfp (talk) 18:01, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as still nothing at all actually convincing of better substance and notability. SwisterTwister talk 18:34, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think this is a reasonable small business Wikipedia article. The company is well-known, it's been profiled by a range of websites and organisations, it's been in existence for long enough to know that it's not getting attention as a short-term fad, its products are considered worth reviewing. Blythwood (talk) 12:07, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:17, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:57, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Is lauded in the photography press as the Rolls-Royce of camera bags. Plenty of reviews and other material out there. Andrew D. (talk) 11:12, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep-- ~~even with positive reviews, this would be insufficient to meet CORPDEPTH~~ Some of the coverage offered below is compelling and the subject is close enough to passing GNG. Article is neutrally written. Overall, a reasonable article on a small business in a niche market, but with enough "human interest" appeal. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:13, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Companies need to pass WP:CORPDEPTH. Over here, the references seem to be mostly in blogs and some sources of questionable reliability and independence. If the company was truly notable, there would be more sources about it. The passing mentions in sources unfortunately do not show notability. I may change my opinion if reliable sources can be shown to have covered this. (I myself wasn't able to find any though). --Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:27, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. "2002 British Journal of Photography article". British Journal of Photography (7368–7375). 2002. Retrieved 2016-08-08.
  The Google Books snippet view notes:
  Within five years, Billingham had become the manufacturer of choice for many UK press and location photographers. Despite their 'Rolls Royce' reputation, Martin Billingham's bags are not as expensive as some people expect - and certainly
2. Sorrel, Charlie (2008-04-30). "Three Of The Best Camera Bags You Can Buy". Wired. Archived from the original on 2016-08-08. Retrieved 2016-08-08.
  The article notes:
  
  A British classic, the Billingham 550 is actually an evolution of a fishing bag. Martin Billingham founded the company back in 1973 and discovered that his canvas bags were being used by photographers in New York. A photographer himself, Martin gave up on fish sacks and switched full time to camera bags.
  The canvas, leather and brass bags still look traditional, but there are a few innovations under the hood. Rainproof, with a neoprene shoulder pad and nylon covered padding inside, it also comes with two detachable pockets and more can be added. The bag will probably last longer than your camera kit. I have had one for years, but to be honest, it’s a little too heavy and even in smaller sizes, quite bulky and fiddly to open. It’s also expensive, but that could just be the weak dollar.
3. Anker, Kathrine (2013). "Billingham Bags" (PDF). Professional Photographer. Professional Photographers of America. pp. 97–101. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2016-08-08. Retrieved 2016-08-08.
  This article is listed in the Wikipedia article as being published by Professional Photographer. It says, "In the first of our Cool Britannia series, Kathrine Anker heads to the Midlands to find out what goes into the making of the legendary Billingham camera bags."
  The article notes:
  
  You can tell it’s a family business by the way I’m received at the new Billingham factory. Harry Billingham, the company director and youngest son of the founder, Martin, apologises for the mess in the back office as he takes me past his father’s old drawing board and a bulging stack of hand-drawn designs from the early seventies, and through to the floor of the new factory building they have moved into six months ago.
  It almost looks as if someone scraped the contents of the old Billingham factory into a van and dumped it in a corner of the much bigger new factory in Cradley Heath, in the Midlands. As in most family abodes, crates of the grown-up kids’ belongings are stored away – in this case not in the attic, but on top of a sky-reaching shelf-unit next to stacks of canvas and thick, brown cow hides. The hides are a point of pride for Billingham. “All of our hides come from Spain, from the tannery that provide hides for Louis Vuitton”, says Harry.
  ...
  I’ve nearly finished my guided tour and get ready to do my piece-to-camera introduction for the video that will come out of this, when I realise that I need to double check some facts and years. I pop back into the drawing room to ask Harry, and find Martin Billingham sitting at his desk, not paying attention to me until Harry prods him to tell us that he started the business in 1973 making fishing bags. This is an area where people fish, and at the time it seemed like a market with high demand. Martin Billingham and his wife moved the production out of their house and into their first factory in ‘77 and turned the production into camera bags in ‘78, when he found out that that’s what photographers in New York were actually buying them for. Martin Billingham speaks with a soft, quiet voice. I feel humble next to this man who started the creation of such a respected product and yet does not brag or put himself in the limelight. My presence almost feels a little intrusive to his quietness, so I excuse myself and head for the door, when suddenly he looks directly at me and we share a little moment. “Nice glasses”, he says and smiles.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Billingham Bags to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 05:29, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is company and WP:CORPDEPTH needs to be satisfied here. The coverage in the first link is limited to 1 sentence. The coverage in the second Wired link is very brief (3 sentences) and is actually in a list of similar products. None of this satisfies CORPDEPTH which requires a certain depth of coverage. In addition, coverage about the WP:PRODUCT cannot be used to show notability of the company. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:55, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have quoted only two sentences from the British Journal of Photography article because the rest of the article is hidden under the Google snippets view. Based on the snippet, it is very likely that the article has significant coverage about the subject.
The Wired article provides significant coverage about the company and its product.
I have also added an article from the Professional Photographers of America's publication Professional Photographer that provides coverage about the company on pages 97–101.
Cunard (talk) 07:05, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to give people time to evaluate the sources presented by Cunard -- RoySmith (talk) 01:33, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 01:33, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here are two more sources:
1. "2007 British Journal of Photography article". British Journal of Photography. 154 (7615–7627): 32. 2007. Retrieved 2016-08-08.
  The book notes:
  
  And in New York, a range of British-made fishing bags caught the eye. The maker, Martin Billingham, soon latched onto their popularity with photographers, and within a year had switched most of his production to camera bags. The Billingham brand is now synonymous with a certain kind of globetrotting photographer who appreciates old-fashioned qualities, such as quality materials and attention to detail. But not so old fashioned that they haven't begun to shoot digital, which is why Billingham has launched its first product, the Hadley Digital, specifically designed with DSLRs > in mind. The bag measures 19x1 lx 18cm, large enough, it says, to hold a camera with a lens attached, as well as additional batteries and memory cards. It has a padded separator to cover the top of its internal dividers to ensure that the camera remains secure, and the internal dividers themselves can be moved using their hook and loop fastenings. It is priced £75 and is available now from UK
2. "Lifestyle News: Get What You Want out of Life". Scotland on Sunday. 2014-03-30. Retrieved 2016-08-08.
  The article notes:
  
  BAGS OF STYLEPEDLARS' Billingham bags have a cult following. Founded in 1973 by Martin Billingham to make fishing bags, the practical, waterproof bags were soon adopted by New York photographers and within a year production had switched to camera bags. These days they come in many elegant guises, still functional and built to last, the new yellow and grey Hadley features nickel buckles, stud-fastening front pockets and an adjustable shoulder strap. Bag for life.Billingham Hadley small, GBP225, Hadley Pro, GBP295, Pedlars (www.pedlars.co.uk)
Cunard (talk) 05:53, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Saying "is now synonymous with a certain kind of globetrotting photographer who appreciates old-fashioned qualities, such as quality materials and attention to detail. But not so old fashioned that they haven't begun to shoot digital, which is why Billingham has launched its first product, the Hadley Digital, specifically designed with DSLRs > in mind. The bag measures 19x1 lx 18cm, large enough, it says, to hold a camera with a lens attached, as well as additional batteries and memory cards. It has a padded separator to cover the top of its internal dividers to ensure that the camera remains secure, and the internal dividers themselves can be moved using their hook and loop fastenings. It is priced £75 and is available now from UK" is something a sales pitch and listing would say, not an actual reputable and known news sources, that is, unless it was a company-authored "article" or PR. As mentioned with the others, the "news" themselves are not to the levels of escaping advertorialism and then having confirmation of actual non-advert substance. SwisterTwister talk 07:16, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The British Journal of Photography article uses such wording not because it is an advertisement but because it is a review of the company and one of its products. This does not invalidate the source from establishing notability. Cunard (talk) 06:08, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that the source is about the product, not the company. The coverage has to be about the company itself. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:14, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Professional Photographers of America article covers the company over multiple pages. The British Journal of Photography article covers the company's history and its first product in detail. I consider coverage about the company's product to be coverage about the company since the product is part of the company. There is enough here to meet Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. Cunard (talk) 06:24, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, seems to be a PR page for an entity without notability. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 13:20, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article is neutrally written. How is it a "PR page"? Please explain so I can address any concerns about promotionalism. Cunard (talk) 06:24, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Thank you, K.e.coffman (talk · contribs), for changing your position from "delete" to "keep (weak)" after sources were presented. Cunard (talk) 04:28, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Easily passes WP:GNG. Cunard is misreading WP:CORPDEPTH, which actually states, "If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability". Even if none of the sources are as in-depth as one might ideally like, there are several of them, and thus we satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH. Edwardx (talk) 13:34, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on sources

The 2 sources in British Journal of Photography are considered 1 for the purpose of notability. The coverage is brief (I see like less than a column).
The Professional Photographers of America is a detailed one. (See below though)
The Scotland on Sunday is very short and is actually an inclusion in a list of similar products. This is routine coverage in CORPDEPTH.
The Wired article is short as well and is again inclusion in a list of similar products. Routine coverage.
Routine sources are not considered while evaluating corpdepth. If we leave that out, we actually have 2 sources - both of which are niche sources focused on the field. It is quite easy to appear on these kind of sources. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 01:41, 19 August 2016 (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.