Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rosso Corsa Sales Limited
- 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. -- Cirt (talk) 08:22, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rosso Corsa Sales Limited[edit]
- Rosso Corsa Sales Limited (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
fails WP:ORG. An unrelated story about the managing director, a one-line quote in a car magazine and a load of primary sources does not notability make. Ironholds (talk) 00:37, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I feel this is notable because the company (and its owner) is still discussed regularly amongst owners of prestige cars[1][2]: the principle reason for publishing the page is to bookmark the fact that the company is no longer trading, despite it having a still-active web site [3] and to provide the reference material of the public-domain Official Receiver's Report.
The "one line quote in a car magazine" was actually a whole page of commentary regarding a specific car, and the sole former director of Rosso Corsa was quoted extensively throughout the page, and the first of the series of reference links at the end of the article pointed towards the company that was started up after Rosso Corsa was dissolved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daltone (talk • contribs) 10:01, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Registration of the RossoCorsa.co.uk domain has been refreshed 2 years after the company was wound up [4] and the address of the registratnt is the original business address of another car dealership (Fiorano Cars - since moved to another address again) which is operating in the same business model as the failed Rosso Corsa. I believe it to be in the public interest that anyone looking for information on Rosso Corsa can be pointed to these pieces of irrefutable information, such that they can exercise the principle of caveat emptor. Daltone (talk) 09:19, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- English commercial law is exercised under the Sale of Goods Act 1979, particularly Sections 12-15 (as amended by the Sale and Supply of Goods Act 1994 and relatively recent European legislation) and enforced through the courts, not through Wikipedia. Indeed, the provisions intended to maintain a degree of caveat emptor so as not to bias the law against businesses mean that a claimant being aware of flaws with the purchased products may invalidate their right to rescission. In addition, modern consumer and commercial law is based not on caveat emptor but rather on caveat venditor, taking note of the limitations put in place by SOGA and Wilberforce's judgment in Reardon Smith Lines. Wikipedia does not exist to provide legal advice or an aide to purchasers (and it is a particularly bad idea when, as noted, the advice given may actually limit the remedies available to the buyer) but instead includes or excludes articles based on notability and importance. The relevant guideline is WP:ORG; you must demonstrate how the article's subject meets that standard. Ironholds (talk) 09:56, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Notability[edit]
OK, point taken on Wikipedia's role regarding offering legal advice. As for notability, I'd reference the secondary sources of BBC News and Daily Mail (Jan 4th 2007) [1] regarding an incident of wrongful revenge.
The principle of caveat venditor is only applicable if the seller wishes to stay in business; the history of Rosso Corsa indicates that there is a pattern of companies being dissolved and operations transferring to other, associated, companies. eg. the currently operating FIORANO GROUP LIMITED was previously known as RNR GROUP LIMITED.
An associated company of RNR GROUP LIMITED, was RNR COACHWORKS LIMITED which later became ROSSO CORSA COACHWORKS LIMITED, which in turn was an associated company of ROSSO CORSA SALES LIMITED. The pattern here is for the operators of these companies to set up a web of sometimes dozens of interlinked companies (ie Company Secretary of Company A is Company B, Director is Company C. Company Secretary of Company B is Company A, and Director is Company C. Company Secretary of Company C is Company A, Director is Company B), and over time, elements of the web of companies have been dissolved and new companies incorporated.
The key point is that this company failed (in a similar vein to Farepak, which collapsed around the same time, albeit with a wider impact), but its operations appear to be continuing to trade, and a series of interlinked companies (operating the same business model, with much the same staff, at a different premises) surrounds Rosso Corsa and Fiorano Cars, its latest apparent incarnation. These facts, the subsequent losses that individuals who were selling cars on a sale-or-return basis via Rosso Corsa suffered (eg several owners reported losing £20,000+ where their car was sold and, as Mr Lukins admitted in the Official Receiver's report, the balance of cash was not paid to the owner prior to the company being wound up), and the interest that surrounded Rosso Corsa's operations (via print media concerning the David Higgins/Richard Lukins incident, and by commentary on online forums) makes this company notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daltone (talk • contribs) 10:46, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Not at all. WP:ORG demands third-party, reliable sources covering the subject in significant detail. Online forums are not reliable sources, and a brief news discussion of a businessman's activities does not create notability for the business. Ironholds (talk) 12:11, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:22, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This article is about a failed automobile business. Someone has taken the trouble to upload copies of legal pleadings out of its insolvency as images. The whole thing seems to be at minimum soapboxing, and possibly an attack page. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:14, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione ....... Leave a message 09:01, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails WP:ORG. The BBC and Daily Mail articles provided do not contain significant coverage about the company. --Pontificalibus (talk) 10:24, 17 December 2010 (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.