Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/South West News Service

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 keep. Katie^talk 23:21, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

South West News Service (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)

Promotional page made by COI editor. Independent coverage of this company not deep - brief article from press gazette in 2008, another here http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/swns-news-agency-takes-editorial-headcount-nearly-100-takeover-national-news 7 entries from holdthefrontpage.co.uk (a couple of which are quite insignificant) http://www.holdthefrontpage.co.uk/tag/south-west-news-service/ One article in the guardian media section http://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2015/nov/05/swns-moves-into-london-by-acquiring-yet-another-news-agency Majority of google results are from major publications using the photo agency Rayman60 (talk) 20:13, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 00:52, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 00:52, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. A significant company, with references which establish notability. Despite the conflict of interest, the article is not promotional in tone. The king of the sun (talk) 17:24, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Article appears to be NPOV in nature. Additionally, appears to have had nice amount of secondary source coverage over sustained period of time. Also, WP:AFDISNOTFORCLEANUP. — Cirt (talk) 14:55, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, appreciate they're separate issues. Outside of the issues raised, wasn't sure of whether this met notability purely according to notability criteria, hence putting it up for judgement by those that know better.Rayman60 (talk) 20:51, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete at best and Draft and Userfy if needed as my searches simply found nothing better and, although the article may seem acceptable and improvable, I believe I've concluded this is best deleted for now or otherwise removed from mainspace as it's still questionable. SwisterTwister talk 22:12, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. SWNS is the largest regional press agency in the UK and one of the single largest providers of content to the British national newspapers. This article was intended to be purely informative, partly because the number of online photo credits for SWNS make it fairly difficult to access this information. Further references to SWNS are from this submission to the Leveson enquiry http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20140122145147/http:/www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Witness-Statement-of-Andre-White.pdf, this article from Press Gazette http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/agency-boss-who-trained-four-national-newspaper-editors-dies-aged-52. A number of similar organisations also have Wikipedia pages https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Press_Association https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rex_Features https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demotix Jonmillsswns (talk) 12:40, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above statement is from an employee of the agency who has recently been advised of the COI policy but has not declared it in this statement.Rayman60 (talk) 14:02, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I included it in my username so it would be clear from the outset. I apologise but I thought that it was obvious. The previous comments seemed to agree the article was not promotional and NPOV. The remaining question seemed to be about notability which I was hoping to address. --Jonmillsswns (talk) 15:28, 28 March 2016 (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.