Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Direct Ferries

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 no consensus. Any "repurposing" of the article can be discussed on its talk page and effectuated by a simple move. Randykitty (talk) 16:14, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Direct Ferries

[edit]
Direct Ferries (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)

Strikes me as the exact kind of article Wikipedia should not feature. I would argue the website/company is not notable and does not pass WP:N.

Article is also a strange mix. It's mainly about the website but talks a lot about the company. But neither passes WP:ORG or WP:WEBSITE. Current references are poor and mentions on the web don't pass WP:CORPDEPTH and also have other deficiencies. I see lots of PR puff pieces about the founders of the company etc. But Wikipedia is not a Yellow Pages: WP:NOTYELLOW. A good PR company does not mean a company should feature. Perhaps another Wiki like WikiBusiness would be more suitable for this website/company.

The article's current references:

1st reference: Self published: [1]. 2nd reference: From the BBC [2]. But is a passing mention only and features/is based on quotes from the director as well as many others. And certainly there is little about the website itself. Does not pass WP:CORPDEPTH in my opinion. 3rd reference: Not working [3] but it refers to this Fast Track entry [4]. But the figures and facts are self reported here [5] so arguably this entry does not prove notability at all. Also, the figures are for revenue not commission/profits. Their profit could be 2% of this. We just don't know. 4th reference: Not working [6]

Other mentions on the web:

Having looked around the web, I found these: 1: Interview with the director. As such not an independent source. Difficult to argue this passes WP:ORGIND. Seems PR based [7]. 2: A quality source but a small passing mention and again based off quotes from the company directly. Difficult to argue this passes WP:AUD. Again seems PR based. Nothing about the website [8]. 3: Passing mention in a limited interest industry publication. Difficult to argue this passes WP:AUD or WP:CORPDEPTH. Again seems PR based [9]. 4: Another PR based piece. Difficult to argue this passes WP:AUD or WP:CORPDEPTH. Again a limited interest industry publication [10].

Thanks - Marksterdam (talk) 12:52, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Marksterdam (talk) 13:04, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Marksterdam (talk) 13:59, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Marksterdam (talk) 14:05, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Marksterdam (talk) 14:10, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment @ThaddeusB: Thank you for the help. :)
To clarify what I mean about the BBC reference: Firstly, the BBC is a huge - there are mentions of all kinds of companies (notable and not) on their website. Looking at the BBC article: Is it about the website in question? No, it's about how not to be left behind by technology. Is it mainly about the website in question? No, there are 8 small paragraphs (6 if not counting direct quotations) in a 34 (approx.) paragraph article. Are other companies/websites listed? Yes, Koozai, Gravytrain, SAP, 192.com and confused.com are all included in the article. Compare this with a genuinely notable website like Booking.com to see the differences [11]. Finally, the article seems to be very much based on quotations. For these reasons I believe it doesn't pass WP:CORPDEPTH. If we included every company that managed to get a few lines or quotes into a BBC article, we would have thousands of websites in Wikipedia. But these websites simply aren't notable.
And when you say "so only one more good one is needed... " - if this is a personal rule of yours, great :) but it's not accepted practice on Wikipedia. If you're referring to this line "A single independent source is almost never sufficient for demonstrating the notability of an organization." in WP:CORPDEPTH I think you are using a false dichotomy. If one is not good enough that doesn't mean two necessarily are. Not that, for me, as demonstrated, the BBC reference is a "good one". Thanks - Marksterdam (talk) 14:54, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it most certainly is the generally accepted practice on Wikipedia that two good sources are sufficient to establish notability. It used to be explicitly written into the GNG that "multiple" in depth sources constituted notability, and multiple was always interpreted as two in AfD discussion. It was removed because occasionally one really good source is enough and occasionally two borderline sources isn't enough, but in general two good sources is almost always seen as sufficient.
As far as false dichotomy, saying something is not as notable as Booking.com means it is not notable most certainly qualifies. The bar to notability on Wikipedia is very low. Indeed most organization written about by a major publication such as BBC are notable (once mere quotations by company personnel are excluded). --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:01, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Regarding Booking.com that was just an example. I never said it was a rule that anything less notable shouldn't qualify. Some websites should. Not this if you ask me. You say, "The bar to notability on Wikipedia is very low.". I would argue that isn't true but either way these are all opinions not facts. Also "multiple was always interpreted as two in AfD discussion". If there is something written about consensus being based on two good sources then please provide a reference. I would appreciate that. Thanks Marksterdam (talk) 17:36, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I believe the company is notable, albeit barely, based on This Sunday Times interview combined with other interviews from lesser sources [12][13], combined with the ~4 paragraphs (i.e. counting short paragraphs as half paragraphs) written by BBC (which only includes one quote, incidentally). I do not believe directors from a non-notable company would be interviewed in depth on multiple occasions (brief quotes, sure, but not full length interviews). The brief coverage in Financial Times also helps a bit. The profile by the Sunday Times's International 200 Fast Track should push it over the edge by providing sufficient basic facts not taken from an interview to justify an article. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:20, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Thanks. I really find it hard to believe that we can consider extensive interviews as being independent of the source and the Depth of Coverage notes do say we should not count "quotations from an organization's personnel as story sources". And there's a clear pattern of coverage based on fluff pieces like this. They have a great PR company for sure! Regarding the Fast Track stuff this is based on self reported facts/figures. You can say what you want. [14] so it's pretty much the same as the interviews if you ask me. And if you look at it, you'll see that they say the figures are for revenue not profit. A small company that sells other people's products on the web can make billions in revenue but very little in profit. I hope you'll consider what I'm saying. Thanks once again. Marksterdam (talk) 17:36, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re:Fast Track: You can nominate yourself, but Sunday Times picks the winners and almost certainly fact checks the info provided. I find it quite hard to believe they would not do so. From the about us page of FT: "Fast Track has established a reputation... due to: the quality of our research behind the league tables... 20 staff and a network of freelance researchers... interview most companies on the league tables and visit over 300 a year." That sure sounds like fact-checking to me, not merely republishing what companies provide them.
As to the interviews, saying a PR firm generated them is speculation. In my opinion, if a high reputation source like Sunday Times does an interview, it is because they expect reader interest in it, not because a PR firm asked them to do so. While the quotes in the interview are indeed a primary source, the background material can assumed to be fact checked (just like any other article) and count as a valid secondary source. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:34, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally, ranking companies by revenue, as opposed to profit, it the standard way these things are done (in business publications). There are many reasons for this, but chiefly profit figures can be manipulated a lot easier than sales figures. (Neither is relevant to notability, though.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:38, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding profit/sales you say "Neither is relevant to notability" - Do you withdraw what you said previously about the "unbiased" figures helping you on notability then: "The profile by the Sunday Times '​s International 200 Fast Track should push it over the edge". The citation from Fast Track is actually for "Private firms with the fastest growing international sales". They wouldn't be there were it not for their apparent sales figures. But now you say that actually revenue or profit don't prove notability at all.
Also regarding "picking winners". This is not the format. To quote: "Participation in our various league table programmes is based strictly on financial performance".[15] It's a league table based on financial performance only - which you can self declare. Marksterdam (talk) 20:08, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also regarding Fast Track, you seem to think that visiting companies and doing interviews is "fact checking". Let's try and not speculate. Need I repeat, the entry is based on reported sales. Without speculating, nowhere does it say that sales are checked. But either way, you've said already that sales/profits are not the basis of notability. Which I do agree with. Especially where you have an agency business model where the commission could be peanuts and sales figures very high.
You also say "saying a PR firm generated them is speculation" - agreed it is, that's why I say things like "I think" and "it seems" but it's based on logic - when you have many sources that are in the form of quotes/interviews etc (what I call puff pieces) I think it's a fairly logical assumption.
You say "if a high reputation source like Sunday Times does an interview, it is because they expect reader interest in it, not because a PR firm asked them to do so". In the real world, it's often a combination of these things. But the interest is in the subject of the article. Which by the way once again, is not the website which is the topic of the article in Wikipedia, the subject is the director of the company and his life story - so there is an argument that the director should feature in Wikipedia but the website? I think not. And as to background information for these interviews being fact checked. One, what background information are you referring to? Two, this is pure speculation on your part. For puff pieces like this for limited private companies, do you really think that the journalist does a lot of fact checking? I think your estimation of journalists is rather high. Besides, what facts can you really check? They are not a PLC. Thanks Marksterdam (talk) 19:50, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We are just going to have to agree to disagree. Everything about the Sunday Times and their Fast Track index makes we believe they fact check (e.g "the quality of our research behind the league tables" suggests a lot more than blindly repeating self-reported provided), which would make them both reliable sources. And reliable source coverage = notability by Wikipedia definition. Every other criteria is irrelevant. A company with $1 of sales can be notable if the coverage is there.
If you honestly think that anyone can just input whatever financial #s they feel like and FT will put them in the top 200 (calling that "winners" was a poor choice of words on my part) if the number is large enough, then I think you are crazy. However, I can't "prove" that they fact check, while you can't prove Direct Ferries' coverage is the result of a very good PR firm. (I do find it humorous you would chide me for "speculation" when you are engaging in it yourself, though.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:35, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"We are just going to have to agree to disagree." Agreed. And yes we've both speculated a lot. :) I agree with that too! I think we've both said or pieces and our arguments (in the debating sense) are there now for others to read and decide for themselves. Thanks. Marksterdam (talk) 11:16, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Amazingly, this discussion is already ten times longer than the article in question. Here's my assessment: ref. #1 is from the company's web site - does not count toward notability; ref. #2 has information about the company, but by itself is not enough for WP:CORP; #3 & #4 return 404s. LaMona (talk) 00:14, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    @LaMona:. Can you please comment on the links used to justify notability (see my "keep" comment), as opposed to just those in the article? --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:13, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sure, thanks for asking. The Sunday Times and Financial Times are behind paywalls, so I can only see a bit of the ST one, and I'm not even allowed onto the page of the FT one. The only part of the ST one that I can see is heartwarming stories of boyhood. Then there are two online business mags that I do not consider to be significant sources - these types of sites exist solely to highlight business (kind of like fan zines) and earn advertising revenue. For example, LondonLovesBusiness has an editorial team of exactly four people. Both of those are light-weight "interviews" of Davies, typical business "fluff". In the last one, the company is listed as 177th in a list of 200, and gets one paragraph. Not significant coverage. So, to sum up. Two newspapers, which I cannot verify, have articles on the company. Then the question becomes: what's the content? Whatever it is, it does not appear in the WP article. If the gist of the content is that the company has become a successful company at doing what it does, and this is the story of a company turn-around, a "single event", then I do not find it notable. People take over floundering companies and turn them around without that being worthy of an encyclopedia article. That's doing "normal business." What I want to see is what is truly notable about this company, other than running "business as usual". Did they invent something? A new way to do something? Are others following their lead? The bottom line is that WP is not a business directory, so a business doing business is not encyclopedic. (p.s. This comment is now longer than the article itself.) LaMona (talk) 16:26, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • You say you wish to see inventions/innovations to prove notability. That is a valid "real world" definition of notability, but on Wikipedia notability means something very specific - being covered by reliable sources in depth. I believe in depth coverage has occurred here due to reasons I already explained, so won't repeat. As to having an editorial staff of 4, that actually argues the point opposite of the one you wish to make. That is, publications with editorial oversight are presumed to be reliable unless there is good reason to think otherwise. Whether the editorial staff is 1 or 100, usually only 1 person will oversight an article. Regardless of the size of staff, it is the oversight that suggests articles are more than the unchecked opinion of one person. A business publication may exist "to promote business" but that doesn't make it less reliable than say a sports publication that exists "to promote sports". --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:08, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think we have to be careful not to be reductionist. That WP has rules about reliable sources does not mean that every company that has had 2 articles written about it is notable. If it were, bots could create WP by scanning newspaper and magazine indexes. There needs to be some intelligence applied to WP. I know that some people want quantifiable rules, and thus there are some numbers in the policies, but I don't believe that any policies were meant to be applied in place of human judgment. I also am aware that living persons and living companies have an interest in being in WP for SEO reasons, which is why we should scrutinize those categories of articles for true notability. LaMona (talk) 16:52, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • You are right that judgment should be used, of course, but they farther we stray from a hard rule the more random AfD decisions become. It's a fine line... You are wrong about search engine optimization though. Links on Wikipedia have been "no follow" for many years now, which means our articles have no effect on any other webpage's ranking. The only benefit one gains is the wiki page itself. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:56, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete trivial accomplishments. LondonLovesBusiness is straight PR. For the two newspaper articles, what is their length? DGG ( talk ) 23:49, 17 December 2014 (UTC) I no longer am sure it should be deleted. DGG ( talk ) 04:53, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    @DGG: Shouldn't you have determined the length of coverage before opining, rather than say "delete but please tell be the length of coverage?" ... Looking in a premium database, I see: The BBC article is 8 short paragraphs, or about 4 full length paragraphs. Financial Times is 2 paragraphs. The referenced Sunday Times article is 19 paragraphs, some of them short, so maybe about 15 full length paragraphs. And a couple not available online: An earlier Sunday Times article has one paragraph. An earlier Independent "the business of the week" article has 5 paragraphs, two of the short. I would say that is sufficient newspaper coverage to be (minorly) notable. Add in the Fast Track profile, which is reliable despite bizarre claims that the Sunday Times doesn't fact-check its FT data, and I think the case is clear.
I also see that Direct Ferries is tracked by ICC Financial Analysis Reports. While that probably does not impart any notability, it does give further independent validation of the financial information reported by Fast Track, which supposedly are unverifiable self-reported junk ("because anyone can nominate a company"). --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:44, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@ThaddeusB: we discussed speculating too much before. And I think we agree it isn't wise. I think we've both been guilty of it. So here are the facts as best I can see about Fast Track:
Can anybody (including the company itself) nominate a company for inclusion? Yes.[16] Do Fast Track say they fact check the financials of the companies they feature? No (but they say they visit over 300 per year and interview most) - so let's say there is no real evidence either way.[17]. Is a Fast Track a reference purely based on financials alone? Yes.[18]. Have you actually said that we shouldn't rely on financials alone for notability? Yes.
Do Fast Track work with ICC Financial Analysis Reports? No evidence. Note however, that it seems ICC Financial Analysis Reports actually collate information on all limited liability companies. To quote from an online database: "the ICC Financial Analysis Reports (ICCLCO) file offers comprehensive analysis on all companies with limited liability in the UK-"large", "medium" and "small", from all sectors of UK industry and commerce."[19]. So they cover everyone, big and small. I really don't see how this supports notability at all.
And finally as others have said it's a one paragraph entry at number 177 in a list of 200 companies. Looking at Fast Track's lists (aka Tracks), every year they will have 750 companies featured. Even if we ignore the fact-checking and self reported aspects (which even surprised me) I still don't see how we can read a one paragraph entry (one of 750 that year alone) as contributing to notability. Thanks for considering this. Marksterdam (talk) 18:01, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ug, either you didn't read what I wrote carefully or are purposely misrepresenting me. I said ICC "probably does not impart any notability" so not sure why you'd argue the same thing. I didn't say it had anything to do FT, in fact I said it was "independent", which is quite the opposite of implying the two are related in any way. In other words, the fact the numbers match is evidence that FT is reliable.
As to FT, you continue to cherry pick words on the FT page to make a point that they do not support. If you read the entire "about us" page, it is quite clear that they are claiming to validate the information on their page. Additionally, it is backed by a undeniably reliable source in the Sunday Times. In my opinion, it is quite silly to assume the Sunday Times just blindly reports every number a random person types into their FT website. Just because anyone can nominate anything doesn't mean the info is blindly repeated ("self reported"). It is utter nonsense to equate the two. Finally, and most importantly, you blatantly misrepresent my argument for notability over and over again by claiming it is based solely on the FT page. That is just one small piece in the puzzle. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:17, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@ThaddeusB: Please forgive me I don't mean to cherry pick or misrepresent anybody. I would advise anybody to look through this discussion to read both of our points for and against throughout the thread not just what was said recently. Your points and my points do indeed cover a lot more than Fast Track. Also forgive me for being a bit ambiguous before. By saying that we have no evidence Fast Track "work with" ICC Financial Analysis Reports, I meant there is no evidence that they rely on their figures/findings/research. They do indeed seem to be independent of one another.
Going back to the fact-checking issue: I think we'll have to agree to disagree as there is no real evidence either way. However, for me there are still many reasons to not use Fast Track for notability (given above). Regarding figures matching, if this is true (you provide no reference), the figures could be from the Fast Track report itself and also wouldn't invalidate any of the points against Fast Track - one key point actually being one that you made - which is we shouldn't rely on financials to prove notability. Fast Track is only about financials. Personally, I think we are starting to go around in circles a little bit. I think we both have argued very thoroughly for and against and now I'd suggest we both should leave alone and let people give their own verdicts to keep or delete. I believe all arguments surely now must be on the table. Thanks - Marksterdam (talk) 10:17, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep : I've added some more news and book sources to the article, and trimmed out some of the chaff. None of the "delete" !voters, aside from the nominator, showed evidence of WP:BEFORE, and a quick news and book search reveals many hits. Most are just mentions of "if you want a ferry here, pop onto directferries.co.uk", granted, but they still count as independent and reliable coverage. I don't believe the writers of Lonely Planet are taking backhanders from the company; rather they, like me, typed "ferries to [insert country here]" into Google and found the site. For me, the Financial Times source that describes them as "the largest ferry ticket aggregator in Europe" cements notability. PS: I didn't get the ping, I just found this on my regular round of looking at AfDs for AfC submissions. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:18, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr\ talk / 04:46, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment @Ritchie333: Since you accepted the article via Articles for Creation you haven't changed your mind therefore. I think it would have been surprising if you had posted a delete nomination.
When you refer to the FT piece, are you talking about this? Which btw anyone can see if they register for free. As mentioned it's one paragraph in a very long piece and certainly doesn't pass WP:CORPDEPTH. As to the claim that the company in in question is the biggest in their field, I think we need to take this with a pinch of salt in articles like these that are based on numerous bitty quotes from business people. I think anyone can see it's very much a throway line within the one paragraph that could have easily been provided by the interviewee. Besides which what does "biggest" really mean? More routes, more customers, more turnover?
Many companies in many fields often claim to be the "biggest", "best" etc. based on many different things. And would any of that actually contribute to notability anyway even if true? Should the "biggest" online camera-shop in Hong Kong feature in Wikipedia? The "biggest" holiday comparison website in New South Wales? You get the point, I think claims to be the biggest in a particular field don't necessarily prove notability and especially if it's one line in an article based on quotes with no evidence of research or even what "biggest" means.
Regarding the other new references you added, the ones which I and others don't talk about above (e.g. the PR type interviews with the directors etc. - my opinion), I agree that these are very much in passing but unlike you, I question whether they really contribute towards notability:
Here we have two sentences, giving Directferries as an example of a type of site and knowing something about SEO and paid links, the way that the key text "car ferries" (autoferrys) acts as the anchor text, and not the company name, would lead me to be very suspicious about this link. See Google's own notes on Link Schemes especially the part about "Links with optimized anchor text in articles".
Another one: One sentence, in an article that mentions 24 websites in total! The Depth of coverage notes are very clear that lists should really not count towards notability. And while this isn't a 'pure' list (E.g. 1,2,3) I think anyone looking at the article can see it really is just a list of travel resource websites.
The Lonely Planet Morocco guide reference you now include which you can see here is again two sentences and as you say is probably the result of the journalist finding a result near the top of Google. Should every company that comes high in Google for particular searches feature in Wikipedia? To me, the answer is no. Furthermore, Lonely Planet does often list many websites in their guides (again, should all of these be included?) just on the page previous page in the Morocco guide I see two other websites mentioned - saharahoverland.wordpress.com (appears down now) and horizonsunlimited.com.
In conclusion, I don't expect I'll change your mind, but what I'm seeing here to me is a non-notable company (they sell ferry tickets online for other companies with presumably a commission model) that yes, does exist, and therefore does get some passing coverage (every company would) and in addition has some pieces that appear to me to be PR led about the company directors lives etc - you could argue the directors should feature in Wikipedia. And of course the fast track list (they list 750 companies each year based on self reported sales (who else could know the company's sales figures) and nothing else). However, what I don't see is any in depth coverage about the website or the company itself from reliable independent sources. Thanks - Marksterdam (talk) 12:57, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The principal problem is that Direct Ferries is used a lot and known about at an international level by tourists and people on the move, but as a subject it's dull. So reliable sources will cover it, but only the interesting bits, which isn't much. A layman reader doesn't care too much about the directors (hence why I reduced it down to the names of the CEOs and nothing else), they just want to book a ferry and sort the rest of their travel. It is the comparethemarket.com of ferries. I've known about it since about 2010 when it came out in the top Google search for "ferries to Ireland" and still does. If I want to travel there, I don't care which ferry company I use, so I let a broker sift the results so I can balance cost versus timing.
However, the term "Direct Ferries" is a legitimate one to type into the search box, and I don't think you'd dispute that there are sufficient sources to write about the company in another article. I've cobbled together List of crossings of the Irish Sea as one possible redirect target. But if somebody created List of crossings of the English Channel, which could potentially also be a suitable redirect target for "Direct Ferries", you're stuck. There is no really good article to direct to. That means we've got to go with "Keep". See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brooke Marie Bridges for a similar AfD.
This is one of the problems where adhering to the specific counting of "x paragraphs in y sources that satisfy z" of WP:GNG doesn't work well, otherwise you could argue the case for deleting lots of small village articles.
PS: I'm not averse to changing my mind and AfDing my own AfC passes from time to time. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:33, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Ritchie333: I'm glad to see you aren't averse to changing your mind. :)
From your description it sounds like you have known about this website/company for a while and perhaps find it's services useful. Perhaps your familiarity with the company/website, while not a WP:COI, may be clouding your judgement about notability and you are stretching more than you ordinarily would in your interpretation of Wikipedia guidelines.
Regarding the fact that you find it top when you search for "Ferries to Ireland": Firstly, we certainly should not consider Google rankings as a genuine indicator of notability. But let's look anyway. When I search, I don't see Direct ferries at the top at all. I would suggest that you are seeing personalised results due to your familiarity with the company. Try hiding personal results in Google by clicking the globe icon at the top right.
When I search, I see Direct ferries at number 5. Positions 1 through 3 are actual ferry companies. Position 4 is another ferry aggregator - which I can't find in Wikipedia - and then you have the company in question at no. 5. For many other searches like you suggest - e.g. "ferries to x" - I also see many other ferry aggregators.
About your thought that the company is dull to the layman and therefore finding in depth coverage will be difficult: Firstly, in depth coverage is part of WP:CORP so if we follow Wikipedia guidelines, then I would say we should also follow this. Secondly, I disagree, because you could say that companies like Hotels.com, Booking.com, Kayak.com, Comparethemarket etc. are dull too -after all the consumer just wants a flight or hotel so doesn't care about the company. But, in reality, you do find significant in-depth coverage - because these companies/websites are genuinely notable. They are big enough and popular enough to actually gain a lot of in depth press coverage. Not just what looks like PR or passing mentions.
Regarding redirects/mergers. Don't forget this is a company/website. Not a ferry route, so I certainly agree that those mergers are not right. This may be a better idea if we add a list of example companies perhaps. However, I see nothing wrong with deletion. Redirect or keep are not the only options. This isn't a business wiki or Yellow Pages.
Finally, regarding your idea that there are problems with using WP:GNG because "you could argue the case for deleting lots of small village articles". Remember that there are specific guidelines for many types of content not just WP:GNG. For geographic regions, areas and places, the notability guidelines are less stringent already, see WP:GEOLAND where it says "Populated, legally-recognized places are typically considered notable, even if their population is very low".
So we can see that there are specific guidelines for companies and different ones for places. The guidelines for companies are tougher. And rightly so. Not all companies have to feature in Wikipedia. It isn't a business Wiki or Yellow Pages but a general encyclopedia. Companies have to be genuinely notable - in other words to have encylopedic value. Although not a rule - as Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy WP:NOTLAW - we generally follow the guidelines from WP:CORP. I can see no reasons why we should make an exception in this particular case.
Thanks. I hope you consider my points/arguments as I have yours. Happy New Year. I may not reply for a while :) Marksterdam (talk) 14:39, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep The BBC article is not substantial coverage--just mentions it as an example, but I think the Sunday Times article is substantial. The mechanical use of the GNG is not the way to use it--one has to actually look at the content to see if it indicates editorial judgment--whether it offers some analysis besides repeating what the company representative said. The problems with using the GNG as a guide is that everything that isn't obvious one way or another relies upon interpreting the key qualifications of significant and independent, and that is very often a matter of person judgment--rather, personal guesswork. DGG ( talk ) 23:28, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@DGG: I agree very much that we have to look at the material in question not just say 1*BBC, 1*FT - many times it's clear that the pieces are PR or lists or passing mentions. Regarding the Sunday Times interview, I think we should also question this.
I don't know if you've read all of it as it's behind a paywall. I paid the £1 to look at it!
It's an extensive interview with the company founder but the topic of the article is really not the company. I would be suprised if there was any editorial input (e.g. research etc.) apart from putting what the interviewee said on paper. From 19 paragraphs about his life, where he grew up, his new house in Switzerland, etc. there are about 4 paragraphs about the company in question (and then in a very round-about way). It also talks about his other businesses, HD Transport and Direct Freight in quite some length. He also has another ferry brand not in the article: Ferries.co.uk see the bottom: "Ferries.co.uk is a brand of Direct Ferries Ltd.". So to me the article is about his life, his various companies etc. (of which there are many) but not about the company in question. WP:GNG says ""Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly" - I think this article definitely does not do that. Thanks. Marksterdam (talk) 12:59, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
are you suggesting we repurpose the article into one on the individual? That might be sensible. DGG ( talk ) 22
44, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
@DGG: It's an option I am not averse to at all. I agree it could be sensible due to the nature of the coverage. Thanks. Marksterdam (talk) 08:43, 31 December 2014 (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/Direct_Ferries&oldid=1068880463"