Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Northgas

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. RL0919 (talk) 16:12, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Northgas[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)

Not notable enough: do not pass WP:GNG, WP:SIRS, WP:CORPDEPTH. Япіб-12 (talk) 15:54, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 16:25, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 16:25, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article seems to be adequately referenced. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 16:26, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Enough sources about the company even in this article to easily pass WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. Beagel (talk) 19:00, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Reuters is a good source. The Wiley research article only confirms the company ranking. There are too many links to ICIS Heren. Dr.KBAHT (talk) 22:39, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What to you mean by "there are too many links to ICIS Heren"? Do you imply that ICIS is not reliable source? Because the fact how many times the certain source is used does not change its reliability. Beagel (talk) 10:06, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I mean that there are 3 links to ICIS Heren. In my opinion that's too many. It's not a news agency, but a commercial company. There is no author. Therefore, placing so many links to this company can be promotional. I'm not saying that they are not reliable. Dr.KBAHT (talk) 19:21, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ICIS is a company publishing business-related information. It is a part of LexisNexis. Two articles out of three have authors included. I don't understand the claim, that it is a not news agency, but a commercial company. Most of news agencies are commercial companies. E.g. in the case of Thomson Reuters, most of its revenue comes from Financial & Risk division, not from the Reuters News. Does that mean that we should not use Reuters just to avoid to be "promotional"? Beagel (talk) 07:15, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2 articles out of 3 don't have author, not one. That's not a good sign. Another bad sign is that almost every other phrase in the "about" section is stating how reliable and transparent they are. Comparing this to Reuters doesn't make sense. Reuters is a well known widely cited news agency. They are explicitly stated as a RS in WP:RSP. This other source is not a news agency. They position themselves as a business information provider in a specific sector. Citing such sources multiple times is suspicious. That's my opinion. Regarding the subject, I voted to keep it because it is notable. Dr.KBAHT (talk) 19:04, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If the source is described as a news agency has nothing to do if the source is reliable or not. There are also news agencies which in general are not reliable sources, at least in certain topics. And being a business information provider in a specific sector does not make the source unreliable. So this argument is totally irrelevant. Beagel (talk) 08:44, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article improved significantly by Beagel since nomination. Now passes WP:GNG. NemesisAT (talk) 19:26, 31 July 2021 (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.