Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sabvest Limited

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. MER-C 03:19, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sabvest Limited[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)

Non notable company failing WP:NCORP. Celestina007 (talk) 11:41, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 11:41, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 11:41, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 11:41, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 11:41, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 11:41, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Plenty of independent sources. Rathfelder (talk) 10:16, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 17:05, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. Plus, the nature of the creator's edits give the impression he has a close relationship with the subjects he writes about. ZXVZ (talk) 23:56, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a publicly traded company in South Africa. It has significant media coverage. I have no relationship to the subject whatsoever. I disclosed all conflicts of interest on my talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎ Machetazic (talk • contribs) 15:13, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Six independent sources is sufficient. Rathfelder (talk) 11:54, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:25, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 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. Also, although the company is listed on the JSE, as per WP:LISTED this does not automatically confer notability. We need sources.
- This from Business Live is based on "commentary" released by the CEO. Other comments are attributed to anonymous "market watchers". This article is neither significant not contains Independent Content, fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND
- This from IOL has no attributed journalist and is entirely based on an announcement from the company containing no Independent Content, fails WP:ORGIND
- This is a standard info sheet from the stock exchange and is not significant coverage, in-depth or containing Independent Content, fails WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORGIND
- This from Moneyweb] is behind a moneywall but can also be seen here is a good article but is written by an employee of Cannon Asset Managers who have a long-standing holding in Sabvest in their Cannon Asset Managers’ Hummingbird Fund, and have also included the share in certain equity mandates. Is from a connected source and is therefore not Independent Content, fails WP:ORGIND
- This from BusinessTech is entirely based on a company announcement and fails WP:ORGIND
- This also from BusinessTech is a mention-in-passing, fails WP:CORPDEPTH
- This also from BusinessLive is also a mere mention-in-passing and does not contain and Independent Content, fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND
I am unable to locate and sources that meet the criteria for establishing notability, topic fails WP:GNG/WP:NCORP HighKing⁺⁺ 11:53, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly fails WP:GNG.-Splinemath (talk) 01:03, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:LISTED is not enough. Sources are routine press releases and their rewrites. WP:NOTYELLOWPAGES. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:24, 8 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.