Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BioTherm Energy

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, fails WP:NCORP. BD2412 T 00:44, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BioTherm Energy[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)

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant English-language coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. DePRODed and expanded a bit, but the sources seem low reliability (press releases, their rewrites, mentions in passing, and overall business-as-usual). WP:NOTYELLOWPAGES. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:59, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:59, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:59, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:40, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer for soft deletion: While this discussion appears to have no quorum, it is NOT eligible for soft deletion because it has been previously PROD'd (via summary). --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:24, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:07, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I didn't know anything about this company before, and did not have an established position about this AfD until doing some research. I had a deeper look at the reliability of the sources, since the criteria for organizations (WP:ORGCRIT) has "a stronger emphasis on quality of the sources to prevent gaming of the rules by marketing and public relations professionals".

The sources included in this article, plus a few more I found, mostly seem to be African sources, which were unfamiliar to me. So I tried to gauge the reliability of each one and this is what I found, mainly following WP:NEWSORG:

Sources that appear to be reliable:

BioTherm Energy wins 251MW renewable energy projects in South Africa (2015): A trade magazine with published editorial standards.
BioTherm Energy secures 20 MW solar project in Ghana (2016): Article in trade magazine with a named author and contact information.
Seven innovative companies meeting Africa’s renewable energy needs: Article with named author in a publication that has a named editorial team.
SOUTH AFRICA: MIGA grants $116 million in guarantees for 4 renewable projects (2020): Article with named author. Background of the author and description of the editorial team is provided.

The acquisition of the company by Actis Capital was covered by a few reliable sources such as:

Denham Capital sells renewables IPP BioTherm Energy
After Garden City carport, firms to power Abuja mall with solar

Sources that appear to be reliable, but with weaker evidence:

Four new renewable energy projects in South Africa receive support from MIGA (2020): Very recent article in trade magazine. Author is named, but full name or contact information is not provided.
BioTherm reaches financial close on four renewables projects (2018): Article in trade magazine. Author is not named, but editor is.
BioTherm flush for African wind (2018): Short article. No named author, but named editorial team.

Less reliable sources or content:

BioTherm Energy Pty Ltd: Bloomberg profile, but might be trivial.
BIOTHERM ENERGY: This appears to be re-publishing a corporate press release from Biotherm.
Four new renewable energy projects in South Africa received MIGA support (2020): Recent article, but could not ascertain the reliability of the source.

I believe this meets the multiple sources criteria (I read WP:3REFS for further guidance) for signicant coverage.

Additionally, WP:ORGSIG states that: "When evaluating the notability of organizations or products, please consider whether they have had any significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education." I believe the effectos Biotherm's projects in the economies of the and power infrastructure of the African countries where it works can be demonstrated by their size. Furthermore, the company has obtained support from international financial institutions such as the Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency.

Finally, Biotherm's previous CEO, Jasandra Nyker, received awards for her work at the helm of the company, such as this one, and more recently this one. She was also invited to participate in discussion panels organized by the World Economic Forum, such as "South Africa 2017 - Electrifying All of Africa", and Bloomberg Philanthropies, "Business Opportunity: 2016 U.S.-Africa Business Forum". This was in her capacity as Biotherm's CEO at the time. (This is to ensure parsing by the AfD stats bot. My iVote is Keep ) Alan Islas (talk) 15:46, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You've put a lot of work into establishing whether the sources are "reliable" or not but appear to ignore WP:NCORP guidelines on "Independent Content" in WP:ORGIND. Announcements and PR (i.e. most of the references you've mentioned) fail the criteria for establishing notability. The others appear to use company-provided stock descriptions with no in-depth analysis or independent observations. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:40, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks HighKing for pointing that out. I see that even though those publications and authors appear to be independent from the company, the policy does warn about trade publications. However, after that initial search I've come across this BBC News story about BioTherm, which I believe constitutes an independent source providing significant coverage of the subject.

After reading the material concerning this discussion and the related AfD for BioTherm's former CEO Jasandra Nyker, I'm forming a picture in my mind that this company (and that person) are notable in the field or topic of African renewable energy industry, which may be suffering for a lack of overall wider coverage. I have no expertise in this area to be more certain, but I can see parallels with subjects closer to my background which would be notable in their own fields, but receive almost zero attention outside specialized, niche publications. So I don't know if it's possible that BioTherm is actually an important renewable energy company in Africa, but still fails to meet the notability criteria, due to the nature of that field and WP rules. Then on the other hand they did get some attention from the BBC.

Anyway, I'm still trying to learn about Wikipedia policies, their spirit, and how to apply them in specific cases. Cheers, Alan Islas (talk) 06:04, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Alan Islas: I think you may be confusing Wikipedia:Notability with Wikipedia:Importance (as in, while notable and important may be synonyms in everyday English, they are not on Wikipedia; what is important in real life is not necessarily notable on Wikipedia). See also WP:ITSIMPORTANT and WP:ITSNOTABLE. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:24, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked at the BBC video. My opinion is that is fails WP:ORGIND because it relies exclusively on information provided by the company and their executives. It's a coup for the company, for sure, to have their profile boosted on TV. But listen to who provides all the facts and information about the company ... it is always a company executive or information provided by the company and parrotted by the presenter. There is no independent opinion or analysis provided by someone not affiliated with the company. As such, this references fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:24, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks HighKing for your detailed analysis of that source, I see what you are saying.

I think you are right Piotrus, I'm probably confusing notability with importance. I did try to argue based on WP guidelines, hence my attempts to analyze and provide sources. But I also acknowledge that in the back of my mind I'm envisioning those huge wind and solar farms, arm-thick wires carrying power for miles and miles across different African countries, and what this involves in millions of watts and millions of dollars, and the realities of concrete, labor, engineering, technology, user benefits, policy, etc. So yes, when I compare the work of BioTherm I think it's more important than, say, secondary TV actors, old videogames in obsolete consoles, random pornstars, obscure in-universe characters, etc, which are deemed notable and have WP articles without controversy. I realize this shows my personal biases, but I'm actually quite happy to accept policy and consensus and I'm glad I've had my say (and some more!) during this process. Thanks! Alan Islas (talk) 19:54, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Pure WP:ADMASK case. -Hatchens (talk) 16:41, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, references to date fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic therefore fails GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:40, 17 August 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.