Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Domestic & General

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion

Domestic & General

edit

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

Domestic & General (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)

All refs fail WP:SIRS, so fails WP:NORG. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:43, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep

I would argue that Domestic & General is newsworthy in its own right in particular when opening new offices and through its CEO Matthew Crummack. Not in the sense that the business inherits notability through Crummack, but that his decisions for the business are often of note in the media.

It is a global company that employs over 3000 people and partners with hundreds of manufacturers to provide appliance warranty to 1 in 3 homes in the UK. I understand that ubiquity in homes does not necessarily mean 'notability' but I would ask that some of the references sources are revisited as "reliable sources independent of the organization have given significant coverage to it".

Any articles that have been correctly flagged as being biased have been removed from this draft. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ecwdgbt (talk • contribs) — Ecwdgbt (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, It would be helpful if some of these new sources brought to the discussion were assessed to see if they can contribute to establishing some level of notability for this subject.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:20, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 02:33, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. As AllyD said, it's an odd one. Quick version: the company is of such significance that we owe our readers an article if we can possibly scrape one together, and the sourcing, while not great, is good enough to scrape. Longer version: we're here to provide information, and it's quite reasonable that the more-than-10% of the UK population whose household appliances are insured through D&G might be curious about the company and its history. We couldn't make an article if there was no information about the company, or if we felt there was a significant chance that the information was false (this is the basis for avoiding non-independent sources). But we already apply some nuance there: non-contentious, factual stuff can be sourced from interviews; academics' institutional CVs are assumed to be factually true. In this instance we have useful information, such as the company being founded by the wiki-notable S. W. Copley, and the lineage of the company via various other notable companies. It's unlikely the basic statistics have been falsified. We have a story to tell, the story is not contentious, so the article passes muster - at least in the context of insurance companies, which tend to generate a lot less sourcing than even the most trivial of short-lived pizza outlets. And, frankly, it would look weird and embarrassing if we had nothing to say on the subject of D&G. Elemimele (talk) 14:01, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as many of the sources cited are primary sources. Ohers that could be reliable failed to provide WP:SIGCOV. This company fails WP:NORG. Mekomo (talk) 15:13, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Domestic_%26_General&oldid=1258176688"