Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Direct Line for Business

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 and redirect to Direct Line Group. — The Earwig ^talk 00:33, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Direct Line for Business

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

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

recreation of an article originally created by an orangemoody sock. Pure advertising, which is sufficient reason for deletion And , for good measure, it's not notable, the references are either notes or PR disguised as journalism. DGG ( talk ) 06:05, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:24, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:24, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:25, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:25, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and possibly Salt to prevent further recreation by possible vested interests. RobinCarmody (talk) 22:00, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This article fulfils the GNG in that it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject written in a NPOV. Further, it is not written like an advertisement in that it does not contain messages to sell or promote a product (which are key to advertising according to the Wikipedia page on the subject). The page mentions the company's products, senior staff, commercial collaborations, and the novel and note-worthy 'clicks and mortar' venture. These points are useful information about any any company and do not qualify as 'advertising' or 'puffery'. Indeed all the points meet the primary criteria for notability of a company.--Evenmadderjon (talk) 22:52, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Question: why would anyone not associated with the company or thinking of doing business with them care who the senior staff is, or the exact names of its products? DGG ( talk ) 04:15, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Answer: This page does not list "the exact names of [the company's] products" (in fact, it only says that the company offers "a range of business insurance products to landlords and the small business sector"), so I am not sure what the issue is here? Regarding, "anyone not associated with the company or thinking of doing business with them" having an interest in the names of senior staff, respectfully I disagree. Firstly, most people doing business with an insurance probably aren't too bothered who the senior staff are just as long as they do a good job, while the general public more likely are interested. This is certainly seems to be the view of the business editor of the London Evening Standard, a publication with a general readership. Sadly, BAME individuals are woefully unrepresented in UK boardrooms, (as this study reported in The Guardian a year ago shows: Top UK firms failing to increase boardroom diversity, study shows). Hence, Jasvinder Gakhal makes a good interview subject - she is of South Asian ethnicity, she is a woman (also unrepresented in the C-suite), and she is the head of one of the larger and most recognisable insurance companies in the UK. This makes the story (both her and the company) notable. The Evening Standard is fourth largest in terms of daily circulation in the UK, so this editorial position carries some weight.--Evenmadderjon (talk) 16:57, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge into main article. Just a subsidy of a larger company that has been hived for tax and financial purposes. As a customer you see the same branding and same website.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 09:12, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails to meet WP:GNG and WP:ORGDEPTH. all sources are trivial ~RAM (talk) 11:23, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, references to date fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic therefore fails GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:49, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- *edit Or as AllyD suggests, redirect to Direct Line Group is a viable alternative to deletion HighKing⁺⁺ 20:30, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to Direct Line Group: The references in the article are routine coverage of this subsidiary and joint initiatives with which it as been associated. The Evening Standard Q&A with the director on her roles in this and other parts of the parent company does not demonstrate notability of the subsidiary itself. It is mentioned in the Direct Line Group article, so perhapa a redirect is an option. AllyD (talk) 20:15, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - sketchy references - mostly press releases - the references in Business News Wales, Edinburgh Evening News and Business Insider are passing mentions - no significant coverage in reliable, independent sources - does not meet WP:ORGSIG - cheers, Epinoia (talk) 01:47, 31 January 2021 (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.