Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arkema

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!} 22:25, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Arkema[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)

Reads like a non-overt attempt at WP:PROMO attempt at finding a clean reversion to revert back to as per a suggestion at my talk page failed as I can't find one. Article was originally created back in 2008 by a user with the same name as the company thus was originally created in violation of WP:COI and WP:PAID even back then, possibly a large amount of the ips and some of the other accounts were Coi and paid editors, given this history I would say even if notable, delete per WP:TNT. Lavalizard101 (talk) 11:49, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Science, and France. Lavalizard101 (talk) 11:49, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, slim down. Unsalvageable promotion is a horse of an entirely different colour. The History section is useful and largely sourced, the Organization section could stand a little removal of management speak but is otherwise also fine. Subsidiaries section needs sourcing and cutting out all the "leading this and that" verbiage, otherwise it should be removed. Worldwide section is generally to the point and factual. Lots of primary sourcing but enough outside coverage to show notability and prevent this from being too much of an in-house production. I don't see anything here that can't be fixed. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:00, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:35, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Arkema is a constituent of the CAC Next 20. All other companies in this index, bar one, have a Wikipedia article (per the CACNext20 box), so fulfills WP:NOT. Yes, the article likely originated from a company rep or such but much of the promotional blurb was removed soon after, see [1] and later edits. Easier to build on and edit what's already here than start from scratch. Rupples (talk) 00:25, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm willing to put some effort into improving the article, (and can start work on it now), but loath to do so while under threat of deletion. Would @Lavalizard101 be prepared to withdraw the nomination at this time? I acknowledge the point about starting a new article but don't start new articles myself. ~~If the article, despite my contributions is not up to standard then by all means renominate. I'd be disappointed but hopefully learn something.~~ I've no connection with Arkema - infact, first heard of the company from the AfD nomination page. Rupples (talk) 18:31, 24 November 2022 (UTC) Rupples (talk) 08:49, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Rupples: It's perfectly fine to improve an article while it's at AFD - after all, the best outcome is if we end up with an additional article. Since I don't think anyone is challenging the notability here, a neutral article on the topic would be fundamentally suitable for mainspace. You could also always make a copy and work on it in your user space. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 09:03, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Rupples: I would be fine with withdrawing the nomination for you to work on it. Lavalizard101 (talk) 10:45, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Lavalizard101. Thanks for the above. Must admit this is looking more difficult than I first envisaged. The problem is lack of independent sources; most coverage is self-published. I can remove the management speak/promo wording and rewrite in a NPOV the (presumably) factual info, but is that enough to make a decent article? As I haven't previously edited in this area, I'm currently looking at Wikipedia articles on other companies to see what's normally included and the sources used. Rupples (talk) 11:37, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:58, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. My view remains keep but after examining the article's history I understand why nominator Lavalizard101 felt the need for a rewrite from scratch. Searches on Google are not that much help in finding independent information. Sources available through the Wikilibrary are, and I'm more optimistic than previously. Arkema being French-based may not have had widespread coverage in English language news sources but I suspect more is available in French. The history section is useful and although some of the presently cited sources no longer exist, there are others which support the accuracy of the timeline as written. One point I've found interesting from the article's history is that one of the apparently 'involved' writers used the term "France's top chemical producer" see [[2]]. Arkema is revamping its image by removing references to chemicals, so now it describes itself as a provider of specialty materials and the Industrial Chemicals segment has been renamed. Losing the article history may not be a good idea. Rupples (talk) 04:11, 2 December 2022 (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.