Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Century Financial Consultancy

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 delete‎ and salted. Daniel (talk) 03:16, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Century Financial Consultancy[edit]

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

Century Financial Consultancy (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)
The history here is a little complex. A previous version, at Century Financial, was deleted after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Century Financial. Liz closed that AfD rightly, but after she did, we found that User:Antonio Vinzaretti wasn't in good faith, which puts its conclusion in a bit of doubt. Then the article was re-created at Century Financial Consultancy and immediately draftified by BoroVoro. Then it was re-created again and speedily deleted by Kuru under WP:G11 (or alternatively WP:G4 although this second ground isn't in the logs).
The creator complained about these actions at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2023 December 19. Deletion review concluded that the speedy deletions didn't meet the letter of either WP:G4 or WP:G11. DRV interprets speedy deletion criteria narrowly and restores if there's doubt.
But there's clearly an appetite among independent reviewers to delete this content. Kuru described it as SEO material with fake sources that failed validation. Several users at the deletion review didn't feel that this content belongs in mainspace, and I rather agree with them. I think we need to have a proper AfD that seriously examines these sources and is conducted without the socking that tainted the previous one. —S Marshall T/C 18:44, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete he article on Century Financial Consultancy lacks independent reliable sources to establish notability as per WP:ORG. References provided seem like sponsored content (Gulf, Khaleej), The article's promotional tone violates also clearly violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy WP:NPOV. As for the creator BoroVoro, looking through his history is alarming. He drafties quite frequently, often before he's supposed to it seems, and it appears to be quite a red flag. It seems like this company page is tangled up with sock-puppetry, UPE, and intentional edits of bad faith. No accusations (I will assume good faith), but very strange all of this. Also ref-bombing. All of this screams red flag.
PD Slessor (talk) 23:53, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sir, I am the creator though I am fairly inexperienced. I am not aware of the respected other editor you have mentioned. (Francisjk2020 (talk) 08:04, 5 January 2024 (UTC))[reply]
  • Keep:

Sir, Multiple Wikipedia editors have commented that the content is not promotional. There are also enough neutral sources available. They were recently voted as the best workplace to work in the GCC(Whole of Gulf)


Recent achievements Century financial was voted as the best workplace to work in the UAE and the best workplace for women https://www.khaleejtimes.com/kt-network/century-financial-tops-the-best-workplaces-for-women-in-the-gcc

Also they made an investment of 100 million dollars into the Indian state of Jammu & Kashmir. https://awaamkibaat.jk.gov.in/jk-govt-signs-mou-with-century-financial-for-100-million-investment-in-jammu-kashmir/ (Francisjk2020 (talk) 08:17, 30 December 2023 (UTC))[reply]

Here are some sources I could find, I am not too good at selecting which ones are notable

https://gulfnews.com/amp/business/century-financial-vision-passion-and-a-commitment-to-excellence-1.1698302255172

https://www.khaleejtimes.com/kt-network/shaping-a-greener-future-collaborative-strategies-for-the-financial-sector

https://gulfnews.com/amp/uae/environment/women-leaders-tackle-ways-to-strike-a-balance-between-growth-sustainability-1.98552371

https://www.khaleejtimes.com/kt-network/century-financial-wins-big-again

https://gulfnews.com/amp/business/corporate-news/uae-based-financial-sector-reaffirms-its-commitment-to-spearhead-sustainability-goals-ahead-of-cop28-1.1679900257627 (Francisjk2020 (talk) 08:31, 30 December 2023 (UTC))[reply]

WP:ORGCRIT is useful in understanding what sources should be used in articles about organisations.
I'd like like to note that my 'delete' opinion is based on WP:TNT and Wikipedia:Verifiability considerations: there's evidence of presented publications offering sponsored publications in their media kits and I couldn't find other English-language significant coverage, but I found that company's spokespeople are being routinely interviewed by Bloomberg on UAE-related matters (search for '"century financial" uae' in Wikimedia Library), so couldn't form a definite opinion whether it's notable or not. What's certain though, is that the sources used in both versions of the article (Century Financial and the one being currently discussed) are mostly inappropriate, as they're neither reliable for verification or helpful to establish Wikipedia:Notability, and the promotional thrust of both articles is unsuitable. PaulT2022 (talk) 18:31, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Considering the history od this article, would prefer a more definitive consensus either way here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 20:43, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Gulf News is used for multiple references, it's listed as a marginally acceptable source per wiki and is yellow per the source toolbot... Having happy employees is great, but sourcing is usual corporate fluff articles or PR items saying where the company is investing. I still don't see NCORP. Oaktree b (talk) 20:48, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: and SALT for six months, for the same reasons it was deleted the previous time. This is a REFBOMBed corporate promotion piece, with no independent SIGCOV to establish notability. The previous AfD would have been closed exactly the same way even without Antonio Vinzaretti's tainted !vote. DRV didn't reject G4/G11, it simply declined to adjudicate on the matter, and rightly so. The latest incarnation could have--and I believe should have--been speedied as G4/G11. But as the nom says, we're here now, let's do this properly so that we don't have to do it again in two weeks. Owen× ☎ 21:19, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. JM (talk) 00:56, 6 January 2024 (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/Century_Financial_Consultancy&oldid=1193883451"