Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Betta Home Living

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:04, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Betta Home Living

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

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Betta Home Living (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Non-notable furniture retailer. The only source that could potentially be used on the article is the Sydney Morning Herald source; all the rest are under role bylines or outright unattributed. A search turns up nothing useful sourcing-wise (string:"betta home living"). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 03:17, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

• Keep. There's already one SMH source in the article. Here's another long one[1]. There's also coverage there under the previous name, "Beta Electrical"[2], but most of which is listed below as it also ran in The Age. There's coverage in Appliance Retailer, e.g. [3][4][5], although of varying quality. The company is covered in a number of earlier stories in The Age[6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16]. Presumably more coverage is available in newspapers from before digitization.Jahaza (talk) 03:59, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

  The main concern I have with these articles is that the byline was not kept. A lack of a byline tends to be a warning sign to me. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 04:02, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

  The Age and The Sydney Morning Herald are reliable sources regardless of whether the articles are showing a byline on the web archive or indeed, even if they ran in the paper without a byline. See this archive discussion at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard.--Jahaza (talk) 04:22, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

  They're reliable outlets. There is a difference between a reliable outlet and a reliable source (for example, The New York Times is a reliable outlet; an op-ed they publish is not a reliable source). And the reason an absent (or role) byline is suspicious to me is because there are many publications, reliable and otherwise, that publish churnalism under such (lack of) bylines. That being said, looking at these articles, these look like run-of-the-mill business news for the most part. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 08:28, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Australia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:11, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:26, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:42, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

• Keep per Jahaza. The SMH articles clearly show notability, and spurious claims about a lack of a byline don't demonstrate otherwise. Deus et lex (talk) 12:11, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
• Keep per Jahaza's list of sources. Waddles 🗩 🖉 21:04, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

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.