Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AKD Group (3rd nomination)

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. Randykitty (talk) 13:13, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

AKD Group[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)

Delete Entirely promotional, all relevent information could be merged with Aqeel Karim Dhedhi (if that also meets notability requirements). References fail the criteria for establishing notability, no intellectually independent in-depth or significant coverage, fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:31, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Completely promotional. They may however meet notability as they have significant press coverage. Also article is biased and they're a whole lot of stuffs left out. PlotHelpful (talk) 20:42, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keepand redirect. Even if material is to be merged, you have to retain the history for copyright reasons. If it's not to be merged, it's still a valid redirect to the individual. Notability doesn't seem to be an issue, given the Reuters article referenced in a prior deletion debate which says, "Nicknamed “Big Dhedhi” for his ability to move markets, Aqeel Karim Dhedhi heads one of Pakistan’s largest domestic conglomerates, the AKD Group." There seems to be plenty of independent coverage in Google news, although there's certainly PR material as well, so this is a very valid search term. (Note that COI issues have been a problem in this area, however.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:02, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to just "keep" after putting in some more referenced material, from Pakistan and beyond, attesting to its place in Pakistani industry. I have concerns about failure to reflect topics globally, given some of the challenges of sourcing content outside of western culture, but both Pakistani and UK sources seem to acknowledge that this firm is substantial. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:05, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Reuters article doesn't discuss the company, it only discusses the allegation of insider trading against Aqeel Karim Dhedhi - so that reference doesn't assist in establishing notability of this company. Of the other 5 references you added, most are discussing the chairman and the references to AKD Group are in-passing and fail WP:CORPDEPTH and are not significant coverage. Its not a case of simple adding references from every Google hit that mentions the company, there must be an independent article with in-depth information. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:12, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Reuters article clearly establishes that the company is "one of Pakistan’s largest domestic conglomerates". The Independent backs this by describing it as "one of the country’s largest corporations." To further verify its prominence in Pakistan, five years later in 2018 Dawn described it as "capital market giant" while the Daily Express called it a "leading Pakistani securities firm." All of this verifies it is prominent and stable in its position and recognized as such within and without Pakistan. I believe there is sufficient verifiable information for an article in accordance with WP:GNG, although as proposed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AKD Securities (open at this writing), I do believe that AKD Securities should be merged into this. They seem to be one entity. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:32, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that you are accurately quoting each article, but your conclusions are wildly flawed. In many cases your "quotations" are actually the full extent of the mention in each article. By no means does this clearly establish anything about the company since none of those articles are significant coverage or in-depth coverage about the company and therefore, as I said above, none of those references meet the criteria for establishing notability and fail WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:58, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll note that I did not say that there was substantial information in those articles about this company. I expressed my opinion that these sources confirm that the company is prominent and stable - and I disagree that they do not establish anything about the company. Four different reliable sources across five years attest to its prominence in Pakistan. I believe there is sufficient independent information even in English sources for an article on this company, but as many companies do in other country this one does also have sources in at least one other language. Cf. the Urdu links. (Hence my reference to WP:SYSTEMIC.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:01, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I take your point that the references confirm the existence and stability of the company but they do not meet the criteria for establishing the notability of the company according to WP:NCORP. I also cannot locate anything among the urdu links you provided. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:02, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a bit more but don't have time to wade further through the hits that ADK + Pakistan is yielding. I do believe that this company more than meets the spirit of WP:GROUP: "Wikipedia bases its decision about whether an organization is notable enough to justify a separate article on the verifiable evidence that the organization or product has attracted the notice of reliable sources unrelated to the organization or product." There seems to be quite a bit of that here. I understand that you disagree but am becoming more confirmed in my own opinion on the matter. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 03:01, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:06, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:06, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep After some of the promotional contents were removed i have decided to change my vote. However the page may still need cleanup, i would do it myself but have a lot doing at the moment, like i state before it passes notability guidelines. PlotHelpful (talk) 20:02, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The reliable sources clearly show it 1) is a major Pakistani company and 2) was notable as a result of the fraud scandal (which seems to make it hard to argue the article is "entirely promotional.") Since WP:NOTTEMPORARY, also hard to argue that the subject of a company article that survived two previous AfD's has somehow had its notability evaporate by the third one. UnitedStatesian (talk) 16:26, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Once again, the criteria is not a "reliable source". Most references are from "reliable" sources but that doesn't mean they meet the criteria for establishing notability. The guidelines are there for a reason. Can you post the links here to those references that you believe meet the criteria and I'll attempt to show you why they don't. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:06, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - The references are in the article, in the discussion above, and in the first AfD nomination. UnitedStatesian (talk) 18:04, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment OK, seeing as you're not prepared to provide specific links, lets go through all of the references. Here's why those references fail the criteria for establishing notability:
- The Reuters reference merely states that Aqeel Karim Dhedhi heads up the AKD Group and goes on to talk about allegations against him of insider trading. There is nothing about the company itself. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH.
- This Independent reference, the exact same. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH.
- This Dawn reference reports that there was no implication that AKD Securities (a different company although it is part of this group) was involved in the "EOBI scandal". As an event, perhaps the "EOBI scandal" may be notable although it is probably one in many thousands of similar lawsuits. But there's no in-depth discussion on the company here, fails WP:CORPDEPTH.
- This Express reference is a mention-in-passing, reporting that AKD released a report predicting the number of seats won/lost in an upcoming election. That's it. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH.
- This Blooberg report is simply an interview with Aqeel Karim Dhedhi commenting on his favorite stocks and the rupee. Nothing at all about AKD. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH.
- This Pakistan Herald reference is another report on the "EOBI scandal" where two directors and Aqeel Karim Dhedhi were taken into custody. Nothing about the company. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH.
- This Express Tribune reference is another article on the "EOBI scandal" and contains nothing about the company other than namechecking the fact that Aqeel Karim Dhedhi is an official of the company. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH.
- Finally, this Pakistan Today reference merely name-checks the company and contains no details on the company. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH.
Not a single one of the articles has any in-depth information about the company. References like those are exactly the reason why WP:NCORP was tightened up earlier this year to ensure that the criteria for establishing notability requires at least two references that are more than mentions-in-passing like the ones in the article. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:05, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: But note: The concerns of good faith citation bombarding, just to present notability at AFD, is noted. On a search I find that the history section appears to be inaccurate: "...founded in 1947..." and "It began business in 1973..." considering sources that indicate the company may have "began business" as early as 1936. The state of the article is not a question of notability as long as there are sources "out there". Reuters is a good one for notability (I do not just consider one source), but with the added "passing mention" sources (even if rebombed just for this AFD) I think notability is established when added to what I found in a search. Concerns of improper sourcing can be addressed on the article. Otr500 (talk) 14:53, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Question for any of the delete !voters: has anyone tried to identify any sources in Urdu, which are almost certainly out there? UnitedStatesian (talk) 00:57, 17 December 2018 (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.