Talk:Parlevliet & van der Plas

Notability

Questions of the company's notability arise from the sourcing currently in use on the article. There is only one source currently in use that is the sort of reliable third-party source that conveys significance (the Australian Broadcasting piece), and that is coverage of a controversy in which the subject was involved, and which has only shallow coverage of the company beyond their involvement. (And, it should be noted, the controversy is not itself covered in this article; if that controversy is key to the subject's notability, then obviously it should be included.) I would not be at all surprised if the company was notable, but the article just doesn't support that at this point. The tag should remain until this is properly addressed. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:56, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

You're welcome to re-add the template on those grounds. Problem being, the company operated under a different name while in Australia, which will take some work to include into the article. I just felt you shot the template a little prematurely however your explanation seems reasonable and I'll cope with the template returning. Thanks for taking the time to explain. -- Longhair\^talk 16:13, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

You cite Greenpeace in one of your edit comments as a source, but they're not a reliable third-party source in this context; they are announcing their own legal action against the firm, which makes them a very involved source, which should be used with great caution for anything other than the claim that they initiated a legal action - andd even that should have a third-party source to indicate that that is a move worth covering in the article. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:19, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree with the Greenpeace source not exactly being ideal, however there's far more legal action outside that claim on their site which I'll endeavour to add over time. Again, the complexity arises from the trading names used and finding sources to explain the complicated maze of who is actually who, when they're all pretty much the same :D -- Longhair\^talk 16:21, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Patently absurd, please note added sources and the sheer size of the firm make a notability tag quite out of order for such a large firm JarrahTree 16:24, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

It is a multinational serial acquisitional firm with a reputation that goes well beyond the Australian context, and the sheer size of the workforce and the annual financil turnover - are well beyond any narrow interpretation of notability possible. JarrahTree 16:32, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

From WP:ORGSIG: "Notability" is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance." No matter how "important" editors may personally believe an organization to be, it should not have a stand-alone article in Wikipedia unless reliable sources independent of the organization have discussed it. ... Arbitrary standards should not be used to create a bias favoring larger organizations or their products.

The sources recently added that are not databases fall into WP:AUD concerns with their apparent specialized audience. -Nat Gertler (talk) 16:42, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

I totally disagree, I believe from checking a less contested version in German wikipedia asserts the importance of such an article and the diversity of issues that are related to the operation of the company and that there are no problems of notablity, regardless of the points brought up above. JarrahTree 17:14, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

I think what the problem is here is that NatGertler isn't arguing against notability, he's arguing more against the sources to demonstrate that notability, and that fact that we've yet to provide them. Again, it's a complex topic, covering languages which are not native to us Australian's, but we're onto it. -- Longhair\^talk 17:16, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Longhair is right. Tags like the notability tags are to encourage proper editing of the article; this wasn't a prod or AFD which would be used to delete the article, but a note that this article is not depicting said notability. I suspect that the subject is notable (in the Wikipedia sense, which really means more "noted" than "worthy of note"); there are problems with how the article demonstrates that. When you say that you "totally disagree", are you disagreeing with the quotes that I have from Wikipedia guidelines (in which case, the guideline's talk page is where you should raise your concerns) or my view of some sources having specialized audiences that raise WP:AUD concerns? --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:47, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Nah, WP:AGF and WP:CIVILITY prevent a reasonable response to this question or discussion, sorry JarrahTree 23:18, 20 November 2017 (UTC)