Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Antin Infrastructure Partners

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. Keeping based on information presented by the community. Thanks everyone for your participation and assuming good faith. Missvain (talk) 18:33, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Antin Infrastructure Partners[edit]

[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)

Company seems to fail WP:NCOMPANY/GNG. Coverage is limited to press releases or reprints of, all reporting ROUTINE business as usual (start up seeks funding, start up gets funding, etc.). WP:CORPSPAM. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:36, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:36, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "raised €3.6 billion" in 2016. Seems a bit more than a start-up to me. Philafrenzy (talk) 10:42, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Press release claim, and is it extraordinary for this type of company, or just business as usual? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:32, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I guess that if you are going to own that much of the UK gas distribution system and 40% of all the trains in the UK you need to raise a lot of money. Philafrenzy (talk) 13:41, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I found a secondary source in Les Echos ([1]). Regards, Comte0 (talk) 12:40, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:11, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Despite the routine-sounding headlines, the two articles from FT [1][2] and this article from Reuters [3] are not merely 'routine business announcements' but are substantial coverage of investments (historic and recent), detailing significant impacts on transportation and energy infrastructure in the UK. The Telegraph article [4] is also substantial coverage, and Antin did not provide comment to the authors. I'm not sensing churnalism from any of the aforementioned articles, and given the scale of the investments they make, I've no doubt that there's more to be uncovered. When I first stumbled on the entry in October I initially thought the PROD made sense, but in further digging, the subject easily passes the requirements of WP:NCORP. Pegnawl (talk) 17:11, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~: does not meet WP:NORG. The sources offered above do not meet WP:ORGDEPTH. For example, [2] is an interview and does not count towards notability. It includes: Our approach is the same as that of a traditional private equity fund," explains Alain Rauscher. Our objective is to create value by providing financing to companies to develop them.; His interventions are invariably subject to the filter of what he calls the "infra-test". Etc. The Reuters source [3] is a routine announcement: Antin Infrastructure Partners has hired investment banks to kick-start a potential $1.5 billion-plus sale of one of Britain’s biggest gas pipelines, banking sources and an executive at a subsidiary of the buyout fund said.. I don't see notability here. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:16, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Disagreed on Reuters. I understand the first two paragraphs being chalked off as a routine announcement, but in the 6 paragraphs that follow the authors go on to discuss the history of Antin's acquisition of CATS, and PE attention to infrastructure in the region, making the piece more substantial than a routine announcement. Any thoughts on the two Financial Times articles linked above? Pegnawl (talk) 16:19, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I disagree. It is not apparent that those paragraphs are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. For me, based on the fact that it starts out as an announcement, there's nothing to indicate that the whole thing isn't an announcement. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:04, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Maybe I'm charitable, but it seems just as likely the author leveraged a routine announcement to segue into a more substantial article. Agree to disagree; striking Reuters, do you have feelings on the two Financial Times [1][2] or the Telegraph [4]? That the Telegraph calls this company an "infrastructure giant" gave me pause, and this was the point at which I decided to de-PROD. Or maybe it was the "owns 1/3 of all trains running in the UK" from the FT that struck me as notable. Pegnawl (talk) 15:59, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Change to Keep, having reviewed the updated article I am satisfied that both The Telegraph and the FT articles broadly meet the criteria for establishing notability. Strike previous !vote. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:00, 16 January 2020 (UTC) Delete I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, fails GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:04, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I believe the company already meets the GNG. As it does more deals there will be more and more coverage so I see little advantage in deleting now only to have it recreated in a year. It helps that the article is in no way promotional and not likely to become so as they don't need us to promote them. It is perfectly normal for journalists to leverage press releases and other primary sources as the basis of a new secondary source as, for instance, The Telegraph did here. They have to base their stories on something and in my experience neither The Telegraph nor the FT are in the business of simply repeating press releases. Philafrenzy (talk) 18:27, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have added some more articles. When the sources are viewed in their entirety, they do amount to significant coverage. Moreover, no one seems to be able to view the FT articles. Unlike most companies, private equity firms generally try to avoid publicity. After all, buying up infrastructure in multiple countries with a view to making it more efficient, performing some "financial engineering" and reselling it for profit is never going to endear you to the general public, especially those who think that infrastructure should be in the public sector anyway. We have a duty to our readers to provide factual NPOV articles on such companies, particularly those who have raised Euro 8 billion. Edwardx (talk) 10:43, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Needs further discussion now Philafrenzy and Edwardx have improved the article
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:18, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 18:06, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesses-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 18:06, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sufficient independent sources. Rathfelder (talk) 10:08, 16 January 2020 (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.