Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FEXCO

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. Tone 11:12, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FEXCO

[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 references are not sufficient to support notability . I don't think they really would have been considered sufficient even back in 2009, when thef article was started. DGG ( talk ) 10:30, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:03, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:03, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Keep The article does not make a claim of importance or significance for the subject. 2 of the sources are routine business announcements that do not satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH; 2 are primary. Looking on the Web I find loads more routine business announcements in reliable sources but that also do not satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH. Does not pass WP:GNG or WP:NCORP. -Lopifalko (talk) 11:10, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I changed my opinion from delete to keep because of WP:SIGCOV that came to light during this AfD, namely: Irish Times, The Times and Independent. -Lopifalko (talk) 14:33, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. To my read, WP:CORPDEPTH is met. While (at time of nom) there are only two sources in the article (and the article does need work, per the longstanding tags), the subject has been the primary topic in extensive coverage over the years in the two Irish newspapers of record. Namely the Irish Times and Irish Independent. In the latter for example there is coverage, across two decades, which includes examples of unfavourable coverage (1999), regulatory oversight (2000), "explanatory" coverage (2008), through to acquisition coverage (2018) and recent events (2019). There is similar levels of coverage in the Irish Times, as well as examples in the The Times (London), Irish Examiner, Financial Times, etc. Are there limited relevant links/refs in the article? Absolutely! Are there limited relevant links/coverage in the universe? Nope. (Does the article warrant improvement? Yes! Does the article warrant deleting? No! Not on CORPDEPTH/SIGCOV grounds at any rate. Not in my view.) Guliolopez (talk) 16:48, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Guliolopez: There is only 1 of all of the above sources that doesn't fall fowl of "Examples of trivial coverage" at WP:CORPDEPTH, this one. -Lopifalko (talk) 12:19, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Response Hi Lopifalko. Of the multiple examples returned in the Irish Times search, this one (covering the subject's foundation, history, etc) stands out. Otherwise, this piece (in The Times (UK)) covers McCarthy and the history of his business in equal measure. Otherwise I would question the suggestion that this type of coverage doesn't contribute to SIGCOV/CORPDEPTH. Given that it is part of a "prolonged" series "regarding a corporate merger[/acquisition/sale]". (There are plenty of WP:CORPSPAM articles in the project. Involving relatively small or short-lived companies or web-properties that have garnered coverage only on the basis of the funding they have raised, or the product launch coverage they have garnered, or the controversy they may have briefly courted. This subject doesn't, to my read, fall into the same bracket.) My "keep" recommendation remains. There are sufficient examples of significant/in-depth coverage to demonstrate that NN is met. Guliolopez (talk) 15:10, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've cleaned up the article and added some more references. I am satisfied that there are sufficient references to meet the requirements for establishing notability, topic passes GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:16, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @HighKing: Which of the sources it now has is not covered by the list of "Examples of trivial coverage" at WP:CORPDEPTH? -Lopifalko (talk) 11:50, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Response Hi Lopifalko, in my opinion, [this one which you've correctly pointed out above and this one from the Irish Times. There is also a mention in at pages 316-317 of this book named "Fodor's London Companion". While there is also a description in this book "The Iveragh Peninsula" also, I note the authors received "significant financial undertaking and generous support] from a number of parties which includes Fexco but nevertheless it contains a relatively "neutral" description of Fexco that is not attributed to the company. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:02, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The company passes SIGCOV and GNG. Spleodrach (talk) 21:15, 3 November 2019 (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.