Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HomeCo Daily Needs REIT

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. Opinions are split as to whether there are sufficient sources for notability, which means that the article is kept by default, for now. Sandstein 13:40, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

HomeCo Daily Needs REIT[edit]

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

HomeCo Daily Needs REIT (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)

Non-notable company. That AfC submission was accepted by MaxnaCarta after the sixth submission; previous versions had been declined by Theroadislong and Bonadea (ping).

Looking at the refs:

  • 1, 2, 10 are financial listings (not in-depth)
  • 3 I cannot read past the preview but seems like a routine announcement / churnalism
  • 4, 6, 7 are routine announcements / churnalism
  • 5 (link) is probably a paid-for piece. It is not marked so, but it includes very promotional writing, has no byline, and the website’s "advertise with us" page promises Pair your message with an ‘information-based’ publication.
  • 8 either churnalism or a paid-for piece; it seems a bit more in-depth than a recycled press release but I do not think an independent journalist would write sentences such as The merger brings together HDN and AVN’s highly complementary portfolios with strong strategic rationale)
  • 9 (undisguised) press release
  • 11 (correct link) and 13 (correct link): I cannot access either. The previews in my online search engine are not encouraging ("HomeCo said that...") but either could be of decent quality (The Australian is a serious newspaper).
  • 12 self-published

An online search provides no useful source, but it does make clear that there is a large-scale paid-advertisement campaign going on. For instance, the Daily Telegraph and the Herald Sun carried the exact same story (both previews start with the exact same words "HomeCo Daily Needs REIT merges with Aventus after striking deal with billionaire Brett Blundy"). TigraanClick here for my talk page ("private" contact) 14:32, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. TigraanClick here for my talk page ("private" contact) 14:32, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Shopping malls and Companies. • Gene93k (talk) 16:47, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I am responsible for one of the several declines before I initially accepted. Notability is clearly established. The issue was always significant promotional material. Notability is demonstrated in sources 3, 11, and 12. Number 3 is an entire article written in the Australian Financial Review, a business newspaper dating back the better half of a century and is Australia's answer to the Wall Street Journal. Small fish do not get picked up by that paper. 11 and 13 are full article coverage examples in The Australian which as you note, is a serious newspaper. I acted as a diligent AFC reviewer and refused to approve this article until the promotional material had been removed, and that the article represented a notable topic covered in a neutral way. The article was authored by what seems to be a good faith Australian editor and I saw no further reason to decline, so it was accepted. HomeCo is a huge business and I can see several of their properties close to my home. Given they're an established business covered significantly in multiple reliable sources, I see no merit in the argument for deletion. Press pieces can be used to verify facts, and while true that they confer no notability, they do not detract from notability established in other sources. MaxnaCarta (talk) 09:08, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for doing the WP:THREE legwork.
    Through the Wikipedia:Library, I could access ref 11 (at this proquest link). It has 492 words, about half of which are relevant to Homeco, and arguably routine coverage. It includes borderline promotional sentences such as Mr Di Pilla is known as an ambitious dealmaker from his investment banking days. Furthermore, the byline is "CREDIT: EDITED BY BRIDGET CARTER" which I find suspicious (if BC edited it, who wrote it?); as a comparison, the first hit in proquest for (HomeCo) AND PUBID(42763) is "Large-format retail centres in demand despite rate rises", 11 July 2022 and it has "CREDIT: Ben Wilmot". So all in all, I think that source is too dubious to rely on it for notability.
    For some reason, I cannot access ref 13 the same way. A proquest search for the title yields no hits; I can see the entire issue of 24 February 2021 (here’s the proquest link, there’s the Gale link) and it’s not in there. (Maybe it is a web-only article / outside proquest coverage?)
    I have the same problem to access ref 3. However, I do see quite a lot of hits for HomeCo in the AFR (proquest search: PUBID(2040384) homeco), for instance:
    None of those are really great sources (routine coverage / interviews-like) but they do indicate sustained coverage. Count me as a weak delete for now.
    On a sidenote: I only cited the procedural history as an explanation of why I pinged specific people. I did not want to imply that your AfC review was incorrect; my apologies if that is how you read my post. TigraanClick here for my talk page ("private" contact) 18:00, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Tigraan I take zero offence, no apology needed at all. Part of reviewing is accepting that your reviews may end up at XFD. You're just doing your job as a fellow editor. :) MaxnaCarta (talk) 23:03, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 14:51, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete thanks to the excellent source analysis above. Sadly, I can't find any extra sourcing. And I'd like to congratulate the editors above on the extreme civility used in the above discussion, very nice to see in AfD. Oaktree b (talk) 01:09, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ping @Oaktree b because of additional sources identified below. Jahaza (talk) 06:18, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Routine funding announcements, businesses doing financial stuff, routine coverage. Oaktree b (talk) 12:48, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There are quite a few articles not yet included as sources, that go beyond merely routine coverage (e.g. earnings coverage would be routine). This was apparently the largest IPO in Australia in 2020. I don't think any of the following are included in the article yet: From the Australian Financial Review[1][2][3][4], from the Syndney Morning Herald[5][6][7], and this article from The Australian looks relevant, although I can't read it[8]. Jahaza (talk) 06:06, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:42, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Di Pilla's high aim suggests Home Co is lining up GPT or Vicinity move" (Australian, 2022, via ProQuest 2632260526) lacks WP:CORPDEPTH because it is trivial coverage - it is about a rumored acquisition, an announcement HomeCo made to its shareholders, and stenography of what HomeCo said.
  • "HMC: the building of a forever business" (Financial Review, 2022 ProQuest 2695915711) appears to fail WP:ORGIND because of the substantial reliance on interviews with related parties.
  • "Clouds part for REITs after market losses" (Financial Review, 2022) ProQuest 2693383000 appears to be coverage of the REIT sector, with a brief mention of HomeCo Daily Needs REIT.
Sources noted above by Jahaza also appear to be trivial coverage, e.g.
This is a continual nonsensical problem with businesses. Everything that reports on the business that the business does gets deprecated as "routine" coverage. But that's not what these are. Routine coverage is a three sentence report on earnings, not a report on the country's largest IPO of the year. News stories with quotes from company CEO's are more substantial because of them when they're in national newspapers, not less independent. Jahaza (talk) 04:09, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I entirely agree with Jahaza - coverage of the company's transactions for a business (particularly when one of Australia's largest IPOs) has to be more than "routine" coverage of the company. There is a considerable amount of sources for this company that is lacking in others, it should not be deleted on this basis. Deus et lex (talk) 09:56, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:N, without encyclopedic coverage available, this should be excluded by the What Wikipedia is not policy. Per WP:ORGCRIT, the WP:NCORP guideline among other things, is meant to address some of the common issues with abusing Wikipedia for advertising and promotion, so brief announcements and dependent coverage are deprecated as WP:NOTPROMO. Quotes from the CEO are promotion; content from the company is promotion; coverage that lacks depth and analysis is not secondary support for notability. Beccaynr (talk) 11:37, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The policy doesn't say that - there is no Wikipedia policy that says that quotes from a CEO and so one are automatically promotion - this a misreading of the policy, like the often-quoted statement in AfDs that interviews are automatically sources that are unreliable. You can't have it both ways - you can't claim "routine" coverage and then when we refute that say it is also unreliable. The depth and value of each source needs to be assessed individually, simply applying a blanket rule here and claiming they are all promotional is entirely unhelpful. Overall there is more than enough coverage here to meet Wikipedia's notability standards. The trading of companies is part of what happens - these articles can be used to demonstrate notability - that is clear. Deus et lex (talk) 05:45, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry for not more clearly referring to the sources in this discussion. From my view, sufficient WP:CORPDEPTH in multiple sources is not available to support notability; what has been identified appears to be trivial coverage according to the guideline, often based on statements from the CEO and content from the company in brief annoucements - these sources appear to be a form of promotion that do not support notability. This article reads like a WP:BROCHURE, with hardly any information about what the company actually does as a business; without independent, in-depth sources about the company, notability is not supported, according to the applicable guideline for companies, which is designed to help protect the encyclopedia from advertising and promotion. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 06:36, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - there appears to be coverage of routine business practices, but insufficient encyclopedic depth about the company per WP:NCORP to support notability. Beccaynr (talk) 01:46, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. By the works of MaxnaCarta and Tigraan, notability is established passing NCORP.`~HelpingWorld~` (👽🛸) 12:47, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The sources listed above are mainly routine coverage of financial transactions, and without any regard whatsoever to the size of the involved fish this does not indicate notability. The incredible paucity of notable information is carried into the article, which is predominantly a history of routine financial transactions. It is not without reason that our various notability criteria require more than this. FalconK (talk) 01:24, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Not all of the coverage appears routine, so I think it just creeps over WP:NCORP. Stifle (talk) 10:04, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Looking at the source evaluation above and the article, I agree with others that the coverage is routine coverage that does not meet WP:SIGCOV.  // Timothy :: talk  12:49, 11 January 2023 (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/HomeCo_Daily_Needs_REIT&oldid=1132953230"