Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tonkin Corporation

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. J04n(talk page) 22:39, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Tonkin Corporation

Tonkin Corporation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

I can not find any reliable sources that discuss this business. I can not find anything to show that this company is notable. GB fan 22:38, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

First, Wikipedia's notability guidelines are not satisfied by the content of this article. Also, Wikipedia's guideline about unremarkable companies are met. It lists only one achievement: nomination in BRW lists. BRW lists are like Fortune magazine lists. A company appears on a list, but there are no accompanying articles, journal reports or newsworthy pieces which might elaborate on notability. For this reason, even if these lists were cited, there would still be insufficient sourcing to ensure verifiable notability because its a list entry rather than material of substance. However, the two references citing it as a BRW Fast 100 nominee are broken or subject of link rot. Further research has not uncovered similar sources to verify the claims. The other reference about the BRW Fast 100 nomination is live but is a link to a self-promoting page on another company's websites which itself does not even mention Tonkin Corporation. In the absence of verifiable references as to its notability, the company exhibits the same profile of millions around the world, the standard of remarkability is not satisfied and thus the article should be deleted. If some other notability could be ascribed to this company, I would welcome the discussion. I have not found any.

Second, this company has never been in the data, marketing and publishing industries in any source material available. The company was in the conference industry.

Third, this company has never had an office in New York, nor in Manila. This is unsubstantiated and unverified. I can find not verifiable source on this.

Fourth, whether the shareholders did appoint a practitioner to handle the affairs of this business is moot. If there is no notability originally, see point one, then appointment of a practitioner does not make it notable unless Wikipedia's aspiration is to be a directory of liquidated companies. Rather, Wikipedia's notability guidelines come then in sharper relief and the article should be deleted. Further, were notability and remarkability to fail, the remnant of this article is an assertion solely about a recent event. Articles overweight on recent events are discouraged by Wikipedia.

Fifth, various recent re-edits have sought to emphasise ownership of this company in the context of insolvency rather than the management which caused it. The Administrator has correctly reverted this article to versions which omit the liquidator's name and the shareholders' names. Ownership of companies which fail to satisfy notability criteria is as relevant as the name of a liquidator of companies which fail to satisfy notability criteria. Also, despite recent re-edits, great restraint has been shown from the shareholders not to 'go to town' with this article in disclosing journalised details of the employed managerial capability. Comparable restraint is not being demonstrated by others. What is left is an article about an unremarkable company which prone to bias and therefore should be deleted.

Sixth, on at least three occasions, this article has been subjected to vandalism. One example involved insertion of a low ranked former employee's name, ascribing him the designation CEO. While Wikipedia administrators have corrected these issues over time, the article has become an editorial war (see last two months) and factual errors have been inserted (see second and third point, and previous versions which assert opening and closing of offices without being verified. These are all untrue). Circumstantially, some persistent recent re-edits on this article are mirrored in other social media websites which display the names of the writers. These authors seek to, incorrectly, lay claim that a shareholder of the company personally owes debts rather than the corporate entity which is the subject of this article. Such claims are defamatory. Any editor of this article must show authentic, independently verifiable evidence that a shareholder personally owes money rather than the subject of this article before the publishing the edits. In another entry in the talk section, there are attacks on this company for alleged breaches of the Spam Act. No such evidence was offered. The slur remains in the talk section of this article. What is left is an un-encyclopedic melee and, for all these reasons, it is respectfully submitted that the article should be deleted.

Seventh, there are many other companies in different jurisdictions called Tonkin Corporation in the United Kingdom, Singapore, Ireland, New Zealand, Australia, South Africa, Canada, China (Hong Kong SAR), Jamaica and the United States. Most are unrelated to this entity. Where they are related parties, the shareholder registries are almost entirely different. In the absence of diligence and care to tease these companies out properly, this article should be deleted so as not to cause confusion with the others. Wikipedia guidelines are cogniscent that groups and individual companies within them should not be blurred.

Finally, if one considers that a minimal standard of importance for this company has not been established, that there is insufficient sourcing available to ensure verifiable notability, that remarkability has not been met, the factual inaccuracies as to activities and locations, the vandalism, and all the other reasons outlined here including that it not encyclopedic, it is respectfully submitted that this article beRovingeditor deleted.Rovingeditor (talk) 00:43, 20 May 2013 (UTC) — Rovingeditor (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Question for roving editor do you have any connection to Tonkin Corporation? LibStar (talk) 01:33, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

• Delete for failing WP:CORP. I couldn't find substantial reliable source coverage for this company. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:CORP. no extensive coverage, just little mentions in little coverage. [1]. LibStar (talk) 01:49, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
• Comment - Trout for Rovingeditor for the worst case of flag-bombing that I have ever seen at Wikipedia. My POV alarm is buzzing so loud that my ears are ringing... Carrite (talk) 04:44, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I will also note that Rovingeditor seems to be a Single Purpose Account with respect to this subject. Carrite (talk) 04:58, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

• Delete for failing WP:CORP. Can't find anything notable here. Agree with Carrite re flag-bombing.Pechar689 (talk) 05:23, 20 May 2013 (UTC) — Pechar689 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Delete fails WP:CORP. Agree with GB fan, Gene93k, LibStar, Pechar689 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Velvetchops (talk • contribs) 06:32, 20 May 2013 (UTC) — Velvetchops (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

The points detailed below by 'Roving Editor' and ' GB Fan' arguing for deletion of this Tonkin Corporation entry are, I would assert are deliberately obfuscatory.

I also challenge the objectivity of 'Roving Editor' and 'GB Fan' If one examines the editing history of both the 'Roving Editor' and 'GB Fan' it is clear that are closely associates of the owner of Tonkin Corporation.

Please note the following:

1) A conference company called Tonkin Corporation founded by a Mr Kenelm Tonkin operated for several years in Australia and other countries

2) The Tonkin Corporation wiki entry was regularily updated during this period to highlight Tonkin's awards and their purported high growth rates. These listings ran for several years and at not stage were their objections raised about their veracity or appropriatness as these awards were from recognised publications. Strangely, now that Tonkin Corporation has gone into litigation Roving Editor and GB Fan - whom circumstantial evidence would suggest are the same person close to the ownership of Tonkin Corporation - suddenly question the relevance of these documented awards. I would argue that they are doing s purely as a pretext for the removal of the entire Tonkin Corp entry on wiki so as to avoid the embarassment of the reference to the organisations liquidation, which is documented by the Australian Securities and Investments Corporation - 'ASIC'- the Australian government regulatory body ASIC

3) When Tonkin Corporation was placed into liquidation in early 2013 many of its creditors and employees were left severely financially disadvantaged as Tonkin Corporation was unable to honor its financial obligations

4) Within several weeks of Tonkin Corporation's liquidation in Australia a similarily named organisation was established in the United States, again associated with Kenelm Tonkin and began actively recruiting employees. Please see text below from http://www.linkedin.com/company/tonkin-corporation

" AMAZING NEWS ... ..... FOR GRADUATES University is behind you. Maybe you have a few years’ experience under your belt. So, what’s your next step? Tonkin Corporation takes what you’ve learned in your degree and extends it. It’s as breathtaking an experience as having everything in black and white, then suddenly seeing the world in shocking technicolour. You master research, direct marketing, channel development, copywriting, the art of selling, time management, strategy, budget management and the magic of persuading others. Along the way, you hone your personal effectiveness, social antennae and leadership capacity. The result is a more focused you, armed with real-world skills no lecturer could ever impart. Everything you learn is portable. They are life skills as much as commercial talents.

In short, Tonkin Corporation welcomes you, moulds you, empowers you and then, in a great celebration, unleashes you. This all can be yours. But you have to be bold and a little daring, trusting your instincts that life was meant to be lived and workplaces are supposed to be laboratories for experiment, learning and growth. To discover more, read now about Tonkin Corporation below or visit www.TonkinCorporation.com today."

Given the past track record of Tonkin Corporations founder and the fact that this individual is now actively seeking new employees and - as a necessary party of organizing a conference - entering into contracts with suppliers I would assert that a full record of his past achievements and financial challenges should be available to these individuals so that they can make an informed decision on whether to proceed.

Deleting this entry would serve the interests of only one person, the owner of Tonkin Corporation. Converesly, maintaining this entry would serve the interests of many individuals and companies, who otherwise might trade with this company deprived of the full history of said individual. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Financial-australia (talk • contribs) 04:06, 20 May 2013 (UTC) — Financial-australia (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

For consideration in response to Financial-australia's points below:

In relation to point 1): This seems only partly true. A quick ASIC search reveals the company was founded 13 years ago by multiple people as an Australian proprietary company with no overseas subsidiaries. Can't see what's notable or remarkable here.

In relation to point 2): The edit history of this article does not show it was regularly updated until March 2013. Between April and December 2012, for instance, no edits were made. I had a look online for info on this comp. Couldn't find anything. Agreed that awards for "high growth rates" seem "purported" (as Financial-australia puts it) and so there's no verifiable notability here. There seems to be little about this company. Embarrassment or otherwise is immaterial, though deletion of this article would not affect any embarrassment suffered by the government website quoted. Argued motive to delete doesn't gel. This issue really revolves around whether this company is notable.

In relation to point 3): This happens in any liquidation and is unremarkable. What Financial-australia says here is obvious for any liquidation but he/she seems privy to "left severely financially disadvantaged." Question: is Financial-australia involved?

In relation to point 4): A simple search of US LLC incorporations shows this assertion about timing doesn't add up having occurred two years ago. The overtly promotional material quoted from another social media site and the ad hominem are not pertinent to the discussion about notability.

Not notable, delete.Pechar689 (talk) 05:23, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

*Note: You only get to !vote once, Pechar689. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 08:00, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

• I have moved the two posts directly above this down from the top and rearranged them to show the order in which they were added to the conversation. The wording makes it a little odd now since they talk about posts below but they do not belong at the top. Next to Financial-australia, I have no connection to this company. I found this article while reviewing speedy deletion nominations and starting cleaning it up from invalid deletion attempts. If you have reliable sources that show the company meets our notability guidelines please present them so we can fix the article and not delete it. GB fan 10:34, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

• I would request that the Ronkin Corporation entry not be deleted.

Tonkin Corporation is no ordinary small company. It has received numerous accolades in the Australian press over the last five years.

The leading national Australian business magazine, Business Review Weekly, repeatedly featuring in BRW's list of the fastest growing Australian companies ("The business has already made BRW’s Fast 100 three times in seven years - it’s an achievement to make the list just once and a rarity to make it three times" BRW Nov 2nd 2011 - link below)

BRW coverage included a profile of the organisations founder Kenelm Tonkin in which he elucidated the reasons for his extraordinary success in business, whilst other national publications such as the Australian Financial Review featured his success www.brw.com.au/p/sections/emerging_companies/lessons_learned_TDno1yzIbqlyo0Y934FPYN www.brw.com.au/p/leadership/how_to_help_new_employees_hit_the_iPu5s6fvtRzuMi6OwZJtPP http://absmagazine.com.au/2012/05/01/expanding-offshore-tips-for-success

So high was Mr Tonkin's profile, that the Australian Financial Review even provided Mr Tonkin with a national syndicated column in which he advised other businesses on best practice strategies: www.afr.com/p/business/enterprise/throw_out_the_doubt_4huXqjaxAZslFY8ST4ZZ5I

www.afr.com/p/business/enterprise/how_to_sell_your_business_B7ddwKY5TH3NgS0kXtQtfK

www.afr.com/p/business/enterprise/make_time_to_research_pg5h9qZYPIBt7qagIAfeGP

Mr Tonkin has also been lauded as one of Australia's leading business thinkers - "Kenelm Tonkin is regarded as one of Australia’s foremost experts in business leadership and growth" - via a number of PR web sites http://prwire.com.au/pr/34573/kenelm-tonkin-leading-writer-thinker-and-business-forecaster-3 http://prwire.com.au/pr/34573/kenelm-tonkin-leading-writer-thinker-and-business-forecaster-3 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Financial-australia (talk • contribs) 13:48, 21 May 2013‎ (UTC)

• "Tonkin Corporation is no ordinary small company. It has received numerous accolades in the Australian press over the last five years.

The leading national Australian business magazine, Business Review Weekly, repeatedly featuring in BRW's list of the fastest growing Australian companies (""The business has already made BRW’s Fast 100 three times in seven years - it’s an achievement to make the list just once and a rarity to make it three times"" BRW Nov 2nd 2011 - link below)

BRW coverage included a profile of the organisations founder Kenelm Tonkin in which he elucidated the reasons for his extraordinary success in business, whilst other national publications such as the Australian Financial Review featured his success www.brw.com.au/p/sections/emerging_companies/lessons_learned_TDno1yzIbqlyo0Y934FPYN www.brw.com.au/p/leadership/how_to_help_new_employees_hit_the_iPu5s6fvtRzuMi6OwZJtPP http://absmagazine.com.au/2012/05/01/expanding-offshore-tips-for-success

So high was Mr Tonkin's profile, that the Australian Financial Review even provided Mr Tonkin with a national syndicated column in which he advised other businesses on best practice strategies: www.afr.com/p/business/enterprise/throw_out_the_doubt_4huXqjaxAZslFY8ST4ZZ5I www.afr.com/p/business/enterprise/how_to_sell_your_business_B7ddwKY5TH3NgS0kXtQtfK www.afr.com/p/business/enterprise/make_time_to_research_pg5h9qZYPIBt7qagIAfeGP

Mr Tonkin has also been lauded as one of Australia's leading business thinkers - ""Kenelm Tonkin is regarded as one of Australia’s foremost experts in business leadership and growth"" - via a number of PR web sites http://prwire.com.au/pr/34573/kenelm-tonkin-leading-writer-thinker-and-business-forecaster-3 http://prwire.com.au/pr/34573/kenelm-tonkin-leading-writer-thinker-and-business-forecaster-3" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Financial-australia (talk • contribs) 20:43, 21 May 2013‎ (UTC)

Copy and pasted twice above. Annoying. Needs to be cleaned. I've just spent 45 minutes sifting through this latest evidence. Nothing is furthered on the BRW list. They are simple lists without any material about this company. Users have had days now to find articles about the company. Let's look at this:

www.brw.com.au/p/sections/emerging_companies/lessons_learned_TDno1yzIbqlyo0Y934FPYN This article mentions Ascential Consulting, Bilo, Shoeys, Tonkin Corporation, the University of Newcastle, Liberal Party of Australia, the NSW Crime Commission and IIR Conferences, a competitor of Tonkin Corporation. This article is not about Tonkin Corporation. It's about Kenelm Tonkin. There is nothing notable about the company here.

www.brw.com.au/p/leadership/how_to_help_new_employees_hit_the_iPu5s6fvtRzuMi6OwZJtPP This article reports a survey, and doesn't in anyway focus on Tonkin Corporation's notability. A company sending out a survey is hardly notable.

http://absmagazine.com.au/2012/05/01/expanding-offshore-tips-for-success In the 15 substantive paragraphs of this article, this company is notable to the extent that it's mentioned not once. Citing this is a real stretch. You begin to see the WP:CORP fail pattern.

Three AFR links are given. These are behind a paywall. The writer raises these, not to say Tonkin Corporation is notable, but rather a person. OK. Good. Nice argument for a different article. This article is about a company not a person. The two are not the same. Nothing is being offered about Tonkin Corporation as being notable.

Then the writer quotes http://prwire.com.au/pr/34573/kenelm-tonkin-leading-writer-thinker-and-business-forecaster-3 http://prwire.com.au/pr/34573/kenelm-tonkin-leading-writer-thinker-and-business-forecaster-3. This is a press release, hardly a credible source. Even if it were credible, its about a person not this company. Again, notability has not been established.

Nothing has persuaded me away from my previous thought about this one. I hope stepping through each link provided carefully shows this is an candidate for deletion.Velvetchops (talk) 08:53, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Where are you Financial-australia? Respond to the arguments here please rather than double the size of the article by refocusing it on a person. No edit justification. This is supposed to be about a company, not a person.Rovingeditor (talk) 18:50, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

• Comment. You know, I'm not really sure what to make of all this. The notability of Tonkin Corporation is obviously questionable, but this AfD discussion is a mess. There is so much rambling and apparent canvassing from new users on both sides. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 08:00, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
• Keep I've read all the above. Based on the information there,, there are sufficient sources for notability, I will AGF about the nomination, though perhaps that's stretching the definition of GF. DGG ( talk ) 21:56, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 17:32, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

---

• Comment. THis looks like an obvious delete, but there are so many issues with rationales and the users that have made them that' I'm going to re-list this for further comments. Black Kite (talk) 17:34, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
• Delete POV issues aside, there's not much coverage in reliable sources here, and given the current liquidation, there's not likely to more forthcoming. Nwlaw63 (talk) 18:13, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
• Move the article to Kenneth Tonkin and rewrite accordingly. As mentioned above, that's what the best references support.'DGG (at NYPL) (talk) 18:19, 28 May 2013 (UTC).

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.