Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Duglas Alliance

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 delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:46, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Duglas Alliance[edit]

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

Duglas Alliance (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)

Non-notable - Google News search shows negligible significant coverage in reliable sources. Also reads as advertising. Paul W (talk) 17:32, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 17:56, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:37, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, there's some news about it and shady deals or something on Google News. Although they seem to be in Russian. I'd be hesitant to vote delete on a none English company that already has a few articles written about them and might have more that we aren't privy to because of the language barrier when searching for sources. For all we know there could be tons of articles about it in Russian news papers that we just can't find through a basic, English slanted Google Search. I'm willing to change my mind and vote delete though. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:44, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Totally agree with you Adamant1. Trehe are so much news about Duglas Alliance in other languages (Russian, Ukrainian). I think we can’t delete an article about a company building hydropower plants. --Abcrad (talk) 11:45, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Hi, Abcrad, are the Russian/Ukrainian news items more than brief mentions, and/or reiterations of company press releases? I looked at one item in Russian using Google Translate and it had just one passing mention of the firm. By the way, a more substantial article in English is a Kyiv Post story about alleged corruption in Equatorial Guinea, and mentions Duglas Alliance's project appointment "despite having no experience in the sector" (if the article is kept, this should be referenced for balance/nPOV). Is the company or its people covered in other (Russian?) Wikis? Paul W (talk) 15:27, 10 March 2020 (UTC) - I have attempted to improve the article; article sources include paid-for directory links, and minor mentions in conference listings, etc, which, in my view, do not establish notability. Paul W (talk) 17:23, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1. Russian/Ukrainian news contents more than brief mentions. For example: https://day.kyiv.ua/ru/article/ekonomika/40-let-demokraticheskoy-diktatury. 2. I asked for balance/nPOV (ltd -- not public company) and waiting for this. 3. Thanks a lot for improving the article! 4. Other (Russian?) Wikis: Sendje Power Station. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abcrad (talk • contribs) 11:11, 11 March 2020 (UTC) --Abcrad (talk) 16:34, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. The linked article mentions Duglas once - not substantial coverage. References to Duglas in the Russian article about Sendje include unreliable primary sources. English Wikipedia uses "Ltd" sparingly - often just in infoboxes to denote the legal entity. Paul W (talk) 11:03, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
These press releases are unreliable sources (see WP:IIS); the government is the client and has a financial relationship with Duglas Alliance. Paul W (talk) 14:00, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you are right, this indicates the scale of the company.
  • Delete, Tried to give it a chance, but no reliable source materialized :( --Adamant1 (talk) 08:50, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I disagree. This is a major energy project. This has been written on the government websites of Equatorial Guinea. --Abcrad (talk) 13:30, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As Paul W said above, government websites aren't reliable secondary sources since they aren't independent of the subject due to having contract with them. Plus, they aren't experts in the field anyway. Even if they where though, the particular citations in the article still aren't enough since they are mostly (or all) just brief mentions or trivial coverage. Also, the whole "it's notable because it's a major company" is hand waving. See Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:54, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I originally nominated for deletion and then did my best to identify reliable and independent sources that might denote notability. But, like Adamant1, I don't feel notability is established. Paul W (talk) 20:37, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Dear Paul W, give me some time. I'll find out the reliable and independent sources. I mean Russian business media like Forbes. Thank you. Abcrad (talk) 09:02, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Abcrad thinks he can find sources if he had more time, so giving him a week.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 00:12, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The two sources added so far are, in my view, unreliable. Both appear to be based heavily on material provided by Duglas Alliance. While I am assuming good faith, the timing of their publication (dates of 17 and 18 March - as an AfD discussion is relisted) is a little too coincidental for my liking, and the EUReporter article also repeatedly uses the full "Duglas Alliance Ltd" that appeared repeatedly in the first published version of the article. Paul W (talk) 12:16, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content. The test is not merely for "independent sources". The criteria for establishing notability for companies/organizations as per WP:NCORP is for multiple sources (at least two) of significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". Also, "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. The references fail NCORP, topic fails GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing++ 12:39, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Dear HighKing. What about KyivPost investigation? Not "Independent content"? --Abcrad (talk) 14:18, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response Dear Abcrad, thank you, you know I think you're right to point specifically to theat article. In fact the kyivpost reference is good. But multiple (at least two) references are required. Can you point me to another that you believe is also good? HighKing++ 20:39, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Neither offer significant or substantial independent coverage. The second article contains just one reference to Duglas. As I have previously said, the Kyiv Post article is the most reliable source, but the company has little other coverage other than that which it has generated itself. Paul W (talk) 10:18, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response Dear Abcrad, thank you, but Paul is correct. Neither of the references discusses the company. The first reference mentions the company but the focus of the article is the hydropower plant (text visible here). The article also references the Kyiv Post article for some of the information. This article fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:CORPDEPTH. The second reference is a mere mention-in-passing and fails both WP:SIGCOV and WP:CORPDEPTH also. HighKing++ 12:22, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Lacks sources to establish notability. Even if the Sendje Power Station is notable, that doesn't automatically mean that Duglas Alliance is. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 10:31, 26 March 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Duglas_Alliance&oldid=947487908"