Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Okeanos Group

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. Modussiccandi (talk) 12:39, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okeanos Group

[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)

New company, from 2019, their LinkedIn says they have 64 employees. They aren't multinational, they just signed some cooperation deals. Lack significant indepth coverage. Mvqr (talk) 13:24, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Mvqr (talk) 13:24, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Mvqr (talk) 13:24, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Mvqr (talk) 13:24, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – fails WP:NCORP. My search found no significant coverage of this corporation in independent reliable sources: only passing mentions, press releases, and the like. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:54, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Just for the record, I've reviewed the sources listed below, and I stand by my delete !vote: as HighKing ably explains, they all lack the independence and significance that WP:NCORP requires. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:59, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:47, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The company is notable to have its entry on Wikipedia. From a quick search you can find some references of notable resources like Arabnews and La Opinion. Cpmpany meets WP:NCORP. Source Wide (talk) 17:18, 14 April 2022 (UTC) — Source Wide (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

The two articles mentioned above are presumably "Saudi sustainable innovation startup Okeanos selected for PepsiCo Accelerator program", which is PR-based coverage of inclusion in a start-up program, and "El arroz nortesantandereano será empaquetado en piedra" about use of the company's product by Cooperativa Agropecuaria de Norte de Santander. AllyD (talk) 17:33, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of those meet WP:ORGCRITE. Organizations require "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject" "with a stronger emphasis on quality of the sources" than just GNG. Mvqr (talk) 10:37, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The topic has enough citations from reliable resources which are independent of the subject and passes WP:GNG or WP:BASIC. Egypt, US firm mull the establishment of eco-friendly plastic alternatives plant - An independently written article from Mohammed Abu Zaid from Arab News, passes WP:RS. El arroz nortesantandereano será empaquetado en piedra - A Spanish article written about a generic topic from La Opinión staff, again passes WP:RS. «مدبولى»: الحكومة تدعم الحلول المبتكرة لمواجهة التغيرات المناخية - An article written in Arabic about an independent topic by Government officials from a reliable news paper of Egypt, Al-Dustour. PM: Govt backs innovative solutions to confront climate challenges - A topic on Environment, story coverred by State Information Service, an Egyptian government agency. The most innovative packaging of 2020 - A list of packaging companies from Fast Company. I think these references are enough to passes WP:THREE. DMySon (talk) 03:28, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Those fail the requirement set in WP:ORGCRITE. [1] is a very brief piece, probably PR, and mentions Okeanos only once. [2] is not independent of the company, it is an interview with the people behind a joint Coagronorte-Okeanos venture. [3] is very brief and mentions Okeanos twice, it is not in depth. [4] is a trade magazine, the sort of prize one pays for, and only lacks any in depth coverage of the company, it just has its name, linking to the company's website, and a photo. With the sources about you demonstrated this company is a complete failure of the stringent sourcing requirements set in Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies), as not a single one of the sources you brought forward satisfy ORGCRITE. Mvqr (talk) 10:33, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I can see the company has received plenty of coverage from many reliable sources. Spkabil (talk) 05:51, 15 April 2022 (UTC) — Spkabil (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep: as per above and title received significant coverage and meeting the criteria WP:NCORP. Jeni Wolf (talk) 13:32, 15 April 2022 (UTC) — Jeni Wolf (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete This is a company/organization therefore NCORP guidelines apply. There are particular criteria for establishing the notability of a company. While some of the Keep !voters have said that the references meet the criteria, none have provided any meaningful response to the criticism of those sources to date.

Unless blatantly obvious, I'm assuming all the sources are reliable and the publishers are corporately independent from the topic organization - but there's more requirements than just "RS" for establishing notability.
The topic is a company therefore we require references that discuss the *company* in detail. "Lots of product reviews" is not sufficient for establishing notability of a company.
As per WP:SIRS *each* reference must meet the criteria for establishing notability - the quantity of coverage is irrelevant so long as we find a minimum of two
WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content".
"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. This is usually the criteria where most references fail. References cannot rely only on information provided by the company, quotations, press releases, announcements, interviews fail ORGIND. Whatever is left over must also meet CORPDEPTH.

An analysis of references follows:

This from Arab News is an announcement by the Egyptian government with four sentences in total, one of which was provided by "the companies" and two by the Egyptian Prime Minister. There is no in-depth information about the company by a person not affiliated with the company, fails ORGIND.
This from the State Information Service reports on a discussion between the Egyptian PM and the CEO of the topic company, fails ORGIND for the same reasons
This from La Opinion is a regurgitated press release/announcement by Coagronorte, a customer/partner of the topic company and therefore not unaffiliated. Its effectively a promotional customer testimonial. Also, it provides no in-depth information on the *company*, fails both ORGIND and CORPDEPTH
This from Newport Orthopedic Institute is a profile for an orthopedic surgeon who helped found the company. It is a primary source with a mere mention-in-passing of the topic company, fails CORPDEPTH
This from Zawya is a Press Release. It is marked as such. Fails ORGIND.
This from Fast Company is a mere mention in a list of innovation-by-design companies. It is not a notable competition/prize and the topic company isn't even a finalist but an honorable mention (along with 6 other companies), fails CORPDEPTH.
This from dostor.org reports on a meeting between the CEO of the topic company and the Egyprian PM. It is a mention-in-passing and contains no in-depth info on the company. Fails CORPDEPTH.

None of the references meet our criteria for establishing notability. Topic therefore fails WP:NCORP. HighKing 16:27, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per source analysis by HighKing. MrsSnoozyTurtle 10:07, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:57, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as per HighKing's source analysis. - Hatchens (talk) 04:38, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Added few other references from reliable websites which are also independent of topic and passes WP:RS. And thus passes WP:NCORP or WP:GNG. Source Wide (talk) 12:30, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The four recently added sources ([5][6][7][8]) all fail WP:ORGCRITE and some, like the mention in a release in Arab News, were discussed already above in the source analysis.--Mvqr (talk) 16:25, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, the added sources pass RS but passing RS doesn't mean they pass GNG nor NCORP. Not sure if thats what Source Wide actually meant to say but its nonsense. HighKing 17:41, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am not agree with Highking. Not all the sources analysis provided by Highking is correct. He claimed the Prime minister's statement and Government website not authentic. I agree the Government announced PR but that is not wholly dependent or in favor of the subject. That means it passes WP:RS and WP:SIGCOV. And still the subject passes WP:THREE and hence meets WP:GNG. DMySon (talk) 06:05, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- No, I didn't make any such claim. Also, thank as to your admission that you "agree the Government announced PR" - please see the definition of "Independent Content" in ORGIND. HighKing 21:11, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: As per User:DMySon analysis this article meets WP:NCORP. MickyShy (talk) 11:13, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Despite repeated claims to the contrary (promotional meatpuppetry?), the article does not meet NCORP. casualdejekyll 17:19, 27 April 2022 (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.