Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fugro

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 keep. Aoidh (talk) 06:38, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fugro

[edit]

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

Fugro (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)

Company fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP as almost all coverage is WP:ROUTINE and/or not independent, e.g. press releases. Issue tags as WP:PROMOTION and self published have been in place for quite some time. Endercase (talk) 23:38, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I've made a few revisions to help the tone and there is plenty of material to support notability of the firm (both general and corporate). I don't see this as so egregiously badly written that it needs to go to Draft space. Here is the diff between my revisions and the version that was nominated for deletion; more work is needed, certainly, and I've not removed the hatnotes yet—I leave that to someone who is not editing the content but rather reviewing the article from an independent point of view. Regards --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:05, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per its prominance in the geotechnical (offshore oil and gas exploration) and surveying industries. The company operates in over 60 countries and employs over 10k people. Rodgers V (talk) 16:07, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as sourcing has been located. Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "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. In plain English, this means that references cannot rely *only* on information provided by the company. Here, the references are simply regurgitating company announcements or PR or are mentions-in-passing. The book is self-published as the publisher is listed as Furgo. I'd ask the Keep !voters above to point to the precise section/paragraph within whichever sources that they believe meets the criteria for establishing notability - the reasons provided to date such as being included in a directory, or that it is a multinational or that it has achieved some prominence or operates in 60 countries or has over 10K employees do not form part of the criteria. HighKing++ 20:46, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The entry in International Directory of Company Histories is unambiguously a significant and independent source. Any company that's listed in this series meets WP:NCORP. Jfire (talk) 04:26, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    -WP:ORGDEPTH Appears to fall under examples of trivial coverage. Unfortunately meer inclusion in the massive volumized collection that has such a broad scope and fairly indiscriminate inclusion criteria isn't enough. Coverage such as of the list of companies in the International Directory of Company Histories isn't by itself evidence of notability. From a brief look at that particular citation it appears to be, given the massive size of the volumized list and the style, routine publicly traded company coverage almost like a slightly more in-depth phonebook OR directory entry. ~ Endercase (talk) 08:05, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Significant? No, it is a directory of hundreds of companies which says "The authors and editors of this work have added value to the underlying factual material herein through one of more of the following: unique and original selection, coordination, expression, arrangement and classification of the information." There is no "Independent Content" by way of original/independent analysis/investigation/fact checking/opinion so it fails WP:ORGIND as a source. HighKing++ 11:42, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 16:39, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment—I've done some work on removing and adding content; see this diff since my !vote above. One of the issues is the Fugro is composed of many subsidiaries and mentions of the Fugro Group as such are sparse; most mentions relate to the subsidiaries as primary focus of a citable work, often with mention but little detail about the umbrella corporation. I think this is the downfall of many multinational conglomerate articles which function more as holding companies for their many subsidiaries rather than functioning as a unified conglomerate. Question is whether there is space between the bars of the rules to support this type of company or not. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:23, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Additional revisions done, see diff since last post above. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:42, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Since the issue here is that the sourcing fails GNG/NCORP criteria for establishing notability, I'll focus just on the additional sources you've added. I'll also point to my previous !vote which outlines the requirements in terms of in-depth information and "Independent Content". You've added a reference from The Daily Review but it relies entirely on an interview with Furgo Geoservices Party Manager Gene Benoit, fails ORGIND. Another from the Daily News-Journal in relation to the award of a mapping contract which is essentially a copy of this company announcement along with quotes from the related parties, fails ORGIND. The next from beurs.nl (from the Dow Jones Newswires) is 5 sentences, fails CORPDEPTH. Another from The Daily Advertiser about an employee getting an (internal) award for innovation is PR, fails ORGIND. The next from the same paper about Fugro Chance winning an (internal) award is also PR, fails ORGIND. The final one, also from The Daily Advertiser, is another announcement, fails ORGIND. Perhaps The Daily Advertiser (clue in the name) isn't the best source for Independent Content? In summary, none of the new references are any better than the previous and the sources still fail GNG/NCORP criteria for establishing notability. HighKing++ 16:08, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I did not add the beurs.nl piece; I fixed the citation for the URL which was there. In the other cases, I think you are assuming that there is no editorial input on any of those pieces, that they are just "let us smooth the feathers of a preening crow" types of pieces, correct? User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 19:04, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll refer back to what I said above. We need content that is *both* WP:CORPDEPTH in-depth and meets WP:ORGIND's "Independent Content" which says original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. I cannot see anything of the sort in those new references. Can you point to a particular paragraph/section in a specific source where your believe the content meets this criteria? HighKing++ 16:05, 21 March 2023 (UTC)/[reply]
  • Question. Is it sensible to conclude by a cursory evaluation of its content that this 69-page report, marketed by Research & Data (produced by GlobalData)[1], can be counted as one of the significant, independent, indepth and reliable sources required for notability here? If not, why not? Rupples (talk) 22:06, 21 March 2023 (UTC) (edited to keep discussion open) Rupples (talk) 22:23, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. My initial reaction to this AfD nomination was one of surprise considering the company's size, stock market listing and longevity. However, the sourcing was reviewed and found wanting in terms of establishing notability. Company news releases generally do not confer notability due to lack of independence and analysis.
The following sources, together with the research report above, I believe help to establish notability:
Wall Street Journal item on involvement of Fugro in search for missing Malaysian Aiirlines flight 370. Limited, but highlights company's involvement in a major news story.[2] Although on a trade publication website, this is written in a neutral tone.[3] The Daily Advertiser article on the company's 50 year history, although containing a couple of company quotes, in the main seems independent.[4] Analysis by ratings agency Fitch. Technical in part and possibly routine, but provides independent commentary on the company's business model and impact on its issued debt securities.[5] News of possible takeover and directors sharedealings.[6] Independent report on 'controversial' business practices in Africa.[7]
As regards the draftify recommendations posted earlier, some of the promotional speak has since been removed. I'm unsure of the internal awards paragraph in the History section. Possibly unnecessary and promotional? I don't think it necessary to put the article into draft to edit out what promotional content/wording remains. Rupples (talk) 23:39, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -The new sources brought up in the last few !votes need to be integrated into the article. These sources do change the dynamic somewhat. With adding a controversy section and with these other substantial changes in sourcing this has/will become more balanced article overall. I'll help integrate these new sources if needed and I step back my nomination. The article still needs improvement but thanks to the hard work and research of a number of editors I no longer believe it should be removed. Endercase (talk) 03:09, 24 March 2023 (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/Fugro&oldid=1146833056"