Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Employsure (2nd nomination)

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 merged to Peninsula Business Services, which may be a very short-lived merge with another shift on the horizon. SPA !votes are given little weight due to their likely unfamiliarity with Wikipedia's policies for inclusion, and for failing to provide rationales for keeping the article that are in keeping with said policies. BD2412 T 03:41, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Employsure

AfDs for this article:

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

Employsure (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)

No significant change since Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Employsure. The article is still being used as a vehicle for promotion, and the subject still doesn't meet WP:CORPDEPTH, at least as far as I could tell. My searches for usable sources were hampered by a significant amount of dross in the form of regurgitated press releases, paid articles, and trivial mentions. The history of spam and recreation at this article leads me to suggest salting if this discussion closes as delete. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 03:48, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 03:48, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 03:48, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 03:48, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 03:48, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have reduced the length of the legal controversies section, to ensure proportionality and avoid coatracking. Given the secondary sources that support the notoriety of the subject, (e.g. sydney morning herald, AFR, plumbers association, federal court statement of reasons) that mention the subject & its prosecutions throughout the article; I think deletion is no longer warranted here. Jack4576 (talk) 05:16, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a notable company in Australia both for its widespread use in HR and small business (these guys underpin much of contract law and employment relationships in Australia, but also are highly notable for the high profile ACCC cases against them. I agree that the original version of the article with native advertising was not acceptable, but the newer version is an improvement. It could be further improved by ensuring all sources continue to be independent, but this not a good case for deletion. Zapdosmapdos123 (talk) 04:30, 19 June 2020 (UTC) — Zapdosmapdos123 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
I note further if you look at Australian news there are a huge number of independent hits for them [[1]] there is coverage both asking for their opinions on major employment law rulings as a trusted source, but also extensive media coverage of the claims against them. While it is clear a proxy war of sorts has gone on, they are clearly have notability and coverage. Zapdosmapdos123 (talk) 04:38, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that most of those "independent" sources in that Google search are native advertising, as mentioned by AntiComposite (who has done their homework). Native advertising isn't independent by definition; they're advertisements for the company masquerading as news. —A little blue Bori v^_^v 2020's a bust; thanks SARS-CoV-2 22:57, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Zapdosmapdos123, The first 10 articles in those search results are unavailable, a trivial mention, a press release, the same press release, another press release, native advertising written by the company, a promoted article written by the company, native advertising written by the company, a promoted article written by the company, and a press release, respectively. When I nominated the article, I went through four or five pages of that utter dross and found nothing of use. If you see any significant, independent coverage in reliable sources there, you're going to have to be more specific. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 23:05, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The ACCC prosecution gives this company significant notability in Australia, especially as they are a significantly large company in the field of Labour Law. Instead of deleting the article, the article should be re-written to ensure that all claims are supported by sufficient secondary sources. Any WP:COATRACK issues can be addressed by incorporating info about the company from those secondary sources, to avoid the only content of the article being legal controversies. — Jack4576 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 04:53, 19 June 2020 (UTC) (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep - this company is well known in HR and small business circles in Australia. The current ACCC case (about alleged misrepresentations relating to government agencies) also makes them notable. Looks like substantial edits have been made to the page since the nomination to improve promotional/NPOV issues but the article can easily be improved to remove that if necessary. Deus et lex (talk) 10:28, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There’s enough there to demonstrate notability. Schwede66 17:59, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the keep arguments here are more convincing than any argument for deletion. --Micky (talk) 18:35, 20 June 2020 (UTC) User is blocked as a sockpuppet. —A little blue Bori v^_^v 2020's a bust; thanks SARS-CoV-2[reply]
  • Keep The company is definitely notable. Much info about their research and activities in the media (online, offline). They are often seen on TV.--68.197.4.12 (talk) 00:22, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Can any of the Keep !voters please provide links to their best THREE references that they believe meets the criteria for establishing notability? This isn't a !vote-counting exercise. Comments like "the company is well known" or "the current ACCC case makes them notable" or "the company is definitely notable" won't be considered unless you can back them up by referencing a secondary source. HighKing++ 20:43, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wow, quite a large number of low-edit contributors at this AfD. And one has been blocked already for socking. Welcome! I've looked at each of the references and like AntiCompositeNumber says above, none meet the criteria for establishing notability. The criteria for establishing notability for companies/organizations as per WP:NCORP is for multiple sources (at least two) of significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. None of the references in the article meet the criteria and having searched I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria. Topic fails GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing++ 20:43, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The following citations meet the criteria for establishing notability at the time of my comment: Number 15, from the Australian Financial Review; number 12, where the company is discussed as the subject of a court ruling; number 14, where a the company's conduct has been discussed in a press release; number 13, where the company is discussed in a union press release, also citation numbers 3 & 4. Jack4576 (talk) 10:39, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jack4576, what is required is described in my comment above. References need to be significant and need to discuss the company itself. The references above do not - most refer to complaints against the company or legal proceedings - these do not provide any in-depth information *on the company* and most have no "Independent Content" at all (see definition above). No.15 from Financial Review discusses the Fair Work Ombudsman "considering" an action against Employsure after complaints from members of the public that they believed a website operated by the company was an offical website of FWO. Not a single sentence in that article is "Independent Content" (see definition above) - the journalist is either quoting information provided by the FWO or quoting information provided by Employsure. This reference fails WP:ORGIND. No. 12 is a court judgement against Employsure for Unfair dismissal. The company is not discussed at all. It is not significant coverage - companies make court appearances every day, unfair dismissal claims are routine. Nor does the reference provide any in-depth information on the company. This reference fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:CORPDEPTH. No. 14 from FWO is the announcement on which No. 15 is based. Pretty much the same text on the FWO. Employsure is a mention-in-passing with no information *on the company*, fails WP:CORPDEPTH. No. 13 is an article discussing legal proceedings involving Employsure and the result of such proceedings. There's no information about the company - indeed you'd have no idea what Employsure's business was after reading the article. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. No. 3 from ACCC is another reference related to the topic first discussed in No. 15 and No. 12. It provides more detail on the legal complaint and the allegations but provides no information whatsoever on the company, fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Reference No. 4 is borked for me but a little digging shows it is also related to the FWO complains and other articles on that website fail for the same reasons as above - there's no information provided about the company itself and therefore fails WP:CORPDEPTH. HighKing++ 20:05, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I find your arguments convincing. I now think Deletealready !voted above is appropriate given the concerns you have raised. Jack4576 (talk) 05:47, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Except that much of what HighKing says is not correct. I accept that some of the sources in the article currently are not independent, but Employsure's work relates to running litigation, and some of its cases have been notable (particularly the ones involving themselves) so your claim that "companies make court appearances every day" doesn't stack up. The sources by the Financial Review are independent and just because they may quote a government agency doesn't mean they are not. The ACCC case in itself makes the company notable. There are other sources too not in the article. In my view, HighKing needs to stop reading something into sources that demonstrates his bias against the article. Yes, the article needs cleaning up but the company is notable. Deus et lex (talk) 07:42, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What Deus et lex is saying holds merit. I think article may in fact be a Strong Keepalready !voted above. Employsure's litigation and legal action is unusually significant even for this type of company Jack4576 (talk) 08:54, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Lets clarify the issue. First off, each reference needs to be examined separately, as a standalone article. Second, each reference must be significant, must contain in-depth information on the company, and must contain Independent Content. Picking one article and saying it is significant or saying it is Independent - but ignoring the fact that it doesn't contain in-depth information on the company - does not mean the reference meets the criteria for notability. It is a very simply process. For example, what "Independent Content" in the Financial Review article provides in-depth information on the company? The answer is none - the second half of the article relies entirely on information provided by the company. If you remove that information there's nothing left. In my view, it is ridiculous for Deus to say that experienced editors with thousands of edits at AfD is "not correct" or that editors are demonstrating bias against the article when a simpler explanation is that Deus, an inexperienced editor with <200 edits, just doesn't understand what is required. HighKing++ 12:10, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Why is it ridiculous to say such a thing? You're reading something into the policy that isn't there. There's sufficient coverage outside of publications put out by Employsure itself to justify notability and it fits the standard. It's simple. It feels a bit like you are becoming a bush lawyer to justify something that isn't there. Deus et lex (talk) 12:21, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is ridiculous for you to say that I'm reading something into the policy that isn't there when I'm clearly pointing you to exactly the part of the policy where it is stated and in my opinion it is the "interpretation" shared by most editors that regularly take part at AfDs involving WP:NCORP. It's also ridiculous that you make vague general statements about interpreting guidelines when you're a new editor with < 200 edits with no experience at AfDs. But lets assume you may be correct. If you want to gather support you should explain precisely why the interpretation I've put forward is incorrect. I've pointed you to the appropriate guidelines and sections such as WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. They're not vague, they're easy to understand and I've explained in detail why each of the references fail the criteria. You, on the other hand, have made vague statement in response and you've don't nothing to address the flaws I've identified in the references other than repeating vague reasons such as there's "sufficient coverage". That isn't how AfD works. Be explicit. Explain. Discuss. Any idiot can make a bald statement without justifying it or referring to guidelines, what is needed is you explaining precisely why, say, the Financial Review reference meets the criteria. Point out which parts are "Independent Content" and contain "in-depth information". HighKing++ 15:33, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you read WP:CIVIL. Deus et lex (talk) 01:04, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My concern is with your assessment of what independent coverage is. WP:SIGCOV says that "'Independent of the subject' excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it". The Australian Financial Review article, for example, is not affiliated with Employsure or the ACCC (or anyone else). It's not a "promoted by" article (of which there are a few for Employsure that I have not referenced here because they are clearly not independent, but they are not referenced in the Wikipedia article either). Journalists use sources to put articles together, so quoting them does not mean the source is not independent. It is significant third-party coverage of the issue it discusses and it meets the criteria for significant coverage. You can't read anything further into the article than that. Deus et lex (talk) 23:00, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, so a "merge/redirect" to the history section of its parent company Peninsula Business Services (that needs some expanding) is out of the question? Coolabahapple (talk) 03:21, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Per HighKing, Bori, and Nom. I have additionally done my own research and not one thing that I can find convinces me that this company meets the notability guideline for corporations or the GNG. Per Coolabahapple, it does possibly warrant being skinned and merged to Peninsula Business Services, however on the surface of it that organisation appears of somewhat dubious notability as well (although I have done not one bit of research beyond a glance at the current sources...). --Jack Frost (talk) 07:53, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/redirect to Peninsula Business Services, the parent company, per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion. I was unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources about Employsure. I added information about Peninsula Business Services' acquisition of Employsure using this source:

    Jupp, Adam (25 November 2013). "Peninsula eyes £100m sales after move to Oz". Manchester Evening News. Archived from the original on 28 June 2020. Retrieved 28 June 2020.

    Cunard (talk) 01:14, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Agree this is a notable company. IMO they have received enough tertiary press cover based on the existing citations. Anecdotally I've heard of them a number of times so they are a well known brand in AU and NZ. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kieran21 (talk • contribs) 00:11, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Peninsula Business Services was nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peninsula Business Services. Cunard (talk) 00:34, 29 June 2020 (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/Employsure_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1068877775"