Talk:Taylor Walker Pubs

Comment

I am not sure where you intend this article to go, but the subject and content do not meet our general notability guidelines or those for companies. Hence I am proposing deletion. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:46, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

This is a well known pub company that has been around since 1730, and is owned by the biggest pub company in the UK? There is so much interesting history that has been gathered from experts in the field including Cask Marque. Pub brands are often a conversation point during pub quizzes so if you can advise how it can be improved - or if you still don't agree with the content being of interest, I'll post it somewhere else. As to external references - 6 independent / external references including a book have been included - I have collected many more that I am trying to verify in the same manner? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Creativecog (talk • contribs) 13:36, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

You have not established or asserted in the article anything that makes this company notable. You need to find "significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. All content must be verifiable. If no independent, third-party, reliable sources can be found on a topic, then Wikipedia should not have an article on it."

"Notable" is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance," and even organizations that editors personally believe are "important" are only accepted as notable if they can be shown to have attracted notice. No organization is exempt from this requirement, no matter what kind of organization it is. If the individual organization has received no or very little notice from independent sources, then it is not notable simply because other individual organizations of its type are commonly notable or merely because it exists (See "If it's not notable", below)."

When evaluating the notability of organizations or products, please consider whether they have had any significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education. Large organizations and their products are likely to have more readily available verifiable information from reliable sources that provide evidence of notability. However, smaller organizations and their products can be notable, just as individuals can be notable. Arbitrary standards should not be used to create a bias favoring larger organizations or their products.

Please read all of WP:CORP to understand how this article fails the criteria. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:12, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks for the reply - looking to become a better wikipedian. Can I just check why published books / main stream press organisations are not considered reliable, independent secondary sources? Jeff Evans is an award-winning, internationally published beer writer. Or can you suggest what I can look for to ensure they are? I tried to base my additions on existing entries e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brewers_Fayre creativecog (talk) 14:40, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

There is nothing notable about the pub-co itself, many of the pubs may be notable and deserve their own articles, the now defunct brewery would almost certainly be notable. But a company that owns 160 pubs is not inherently notable. The only RS describing for their activities are press reports of company results and the occasional take-over bid. Do you understand what I am pointing you at in the notability guidelines. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:38, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Brewers Fayre isn't notable either, see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:41, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Pubs

I have removed all content about individual pubs' histories as it is not at all relevant to the company. Any pubs which are notable (ie Ye Olde Cock Tavern) alrready have their own articles.--Tuzapicabit (talk) 14:07, 10 May 2012 (UTC)