Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Athlone Group of Companies


 * 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. The Bushranger One ping only 01:57, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Athlone Group of Companies

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Company appears to fail WP:CORP and WP:GNG. As with the previously deleted articles on the same subject--The Athlone Group and Athlone Group--this article contains sources about Jojar S Dhinsa, but notability is not inherited. The remaining sources establish the existence of the company and some of its activities, but do not appear to rise to the level of significant coverage. VernoWhitney (talk) 15:30, 21 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Extensive Governmental Membership & Recognition Athlone Group of Companies has a long list of Government ministers as members, namely;
 * HE Karin Wade, Minister of State for Energy for Senegal
 * Finance Minister of Senegal
 * Claude S. Bouah-Kamon Ambassador for Ivory Coast
 * Sinknesh Ejjigu, Mining Minister of Ethiopia
 * Berhanu Kebede, Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of Ethiopia
 * Mr Otabek Akbarov, Ambassador of Republic of Uzbekistan
 * Roosevelt Jayjay, Mines and Energy Minister of Liberia
 * Prime Minister of Sri Lanka
 * Trade Minister of Sri Lanka
 * Joan K.N.Rwabyomere, High Commissioner for Uganda
 * Prince Sultan bin Abdul Aziz Al Saud
 * Abdullah Bin Abdulaziz, King of Saudi Arabia
 * Fahad Bin Migrin Bin Abdulaziz Al-Saud, Prince of Saudi Arabia
 * Edward Turay, High Commissioner of Sierra Leone
 * Tilahun Gemechu Gelashe, Ethiopian Investment Minister
 * High Commissioner of Sudan
 * As documented and evidenced by photographs here http://www.athlonegroup.com/gallery.html The sheer number of high-profile figurehead members make this group a significant entry for recognition to Wikipedia. The member companies of Athlone contribute approximately $2.5 billion to humanitarian projects and causes annually, and is worthy of note. Regards MarcelBrandon (talk) 15:51, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I would also like to offer the following example; Athlone Group runs a program called UBUDO - a program set up to take children off the streets in Kenya, by giving them shelter, and then running fitness classes to help them stay healthy and fit.
 * http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=giW2RgpuYoE
 * http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8Ox0k-ELgg
 * http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FWCMjf0sllA
 * http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GpqqHvyaRYM
 * http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MTHlbhBvbGY
 * Please check these videos and I'm sure you will see the good work that is being achieved here. Kind regards MarcelBrandon (talk) 16:10, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Regardless of good work achieved, a bunch of YouTube videos doesn't make a group notable. Nor does having notable members necessarily under WP:INHERIT. A quick Google search of mine turned up nothing. Delete. Lukeno94 (talk) 22:13, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete after some detailed research, I have to conclude not notable, and quite likely doesn't exist. nonsense  ferret  00:20, 22 January 2013 (UTC)  A previous version of the page was deleted some time ago - The_Athlone_Group   nonsense  ferret  00:38, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete Were all the information in the article verifiable, then the organisation would almost certainly be notable. But like nonsenseferret, I have to conclude that there is something very wrong here. --AJHingston (talk) 00:53, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - and for very good reasons; This was not just a "bunch of YouTube videos" ... However your comments do reflect the very reason for this Group being on Wikipedia; As you noted that the Group does 'good work' - there is not nearly enough recognition from the general public as to the efforts these ministers go to in order to support the underprivileged nations, and to bettering their conditions of life. Many charities spend huge amounts of their budget on advertising, tv shows, and news releases - which is a huge waste of money that was intended to help those in need. The youtube videos are more than just an advertisement of a branded charity, they are proof of REAL charity work going on to help those in need, and I find the comment about them rather distasteful. I would respectfully invite you to withdraw the comment. -Regards, MarcelBrandon (talk) 11:04, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The fact is, my comment is 100% correct. We're not looking for advertising (which is what this page is being used for anyway, one way or another), TV shows, news releases or YouTube videos. We're looking for significant coverage in multiple reliable sources: please read WP:GNG. And the fact is, there isn't a reference present that I can fully assert helps pass this guideline: Refs 1, 4, 5, 11 and 15 are primary sources, refs 2, 3, 6, 8, 14 and 16 are not on the internet, so I can't evaluate them (ref 16 is a reliable source, but I'm not convinced there'll be significant coverage there), ref 7 doesn't make any sense whatsoever, ref 9 mentions the Athlone Group in passing once, ref 10 makes no mention of this group, ref 12 is not useful (sponsoring some random kid's team is not a grounds for notability, and technically makes that a primary source as well), ref 13 is actually not about this group in the slightest, but it is in fact about people FROM Athlone (for someone not checking properly, they'd accept that ref), and I couldn't find anything anywhere else. If it wasn't for ref 9, I might switch my vote to Speedy Delete as a pure fabrication, but that small mention there makes no difference to my vote. Lukeno94 (talk) 13:16, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * No, it's not correct. This is not advertising, rather, it is documenting a group of investors that have contributed a huge amount to a great number of suffering nations. Personally, I believe you are somewhat prejudiced into voting to delete items, rather than seeing the genuine good nature of others. With reference to your comment, "refs 2, 3, 6, 8, 14 and 16 are not on the internet, so I can't evaluate them" - since when was the internet the only acceptable form of reference? - MarcelBrandon (talk) 13:38, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Where did I say the internet was the only acceptable form of reference? I'm making a judgement based on those I can see, and using the sources that are in the article to guess at the amount of information in those that aren't on the internet. Oh, and prejudiced against deleting items, am I? Care to take a look through my contributions and to see my keep votes and positive contributions? This article has a history of deletion and recreation. The presence of a Wikipedia page on any organization is automatically advertising, regardless of how it's written. Your comments STILL don't address the concerns myself and other editors have raised several times here. Lukeno94 (talk) 13:47, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Worth mentioning also the policy regarding conflict of interest WP:COI - people connected to Athlone are strongly discouraged from editing directly or submitting articles about Athlone, and should declare the nature of their relationship with the 'group'.  nonsense  ferret  13:35, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I looked at the user's talkpage, and see a previous SPI there - I've opened a new one based on the fact there are now more shared edits: Sockpuppet investigations/Marcelhudson. Lukeno94 (talk) 13:37, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * As you said yourself, it was closed down because there was no connection. My additions have been fair, and genuine, and frankly do not understand reluctance to see the positive attributes, and notability of a group of high profile people that support a large number of suffering people, and I find the unwarranted negativity quite distasteful - MarcelBrandon (talk) 13:51, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I didn't say that, I said it was closed before. Now there is more evidence supporting this. Lukeno94 (talk) 13:56, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Perhaps Marcel, you can provide details of the group structure of Athlone - after all it would be pointless having an article about a corporate group without that - it would be good to get the exact names of companies that are part of this group, with their registered address and company numbers. I'm sure this information will remove any confusion about this article. nonsense  ferret  14:01, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I did, in the article, and above, the list of government members. Feel free to contact them to confirm their involvement, as per their photograph with J Dhinsa on the gallery page, as linked. MarcelBrandon (talk) 14:08, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It would help us if you could point to exactly where you have provided the information about the Athlone Group that nonsenseferret has asked for. There are a lot of references in the article but they are not very helpful to us and some such as this one appear very strange indeed. They do not help your case. --AJHingston (talk) 15:27, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 18:16, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 18:16, 22 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment -- The article on the founder Jojar S Dhinsa is rather brief. Normally the members of a company are its shareholders, but being a minor shareholder in a company is not something we would categorise a person by.  I would not expect a company to be the forum for an international conference, which is what the artcile seems to imply.  Do these sponsors ("members") meet? If so, how often and where?  Rather than a list of the alleged sponsors, I would prefer to see details of what the subsidiaries are, where they operate, and what they do; details of its capitalisation and profits.  If the founder is really worth £40M, I would expect his company to have greater assets, especially if there are other shareholders.  In that case, it would cerrtainly be notable.  At present, I am very doubtful as to the article's merits.  Peterkingiron (talk) 17:37, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * There are many meetings, as documented on the Gallery page which is listed, along with details of the projects being funded / discussed by those members appearing in the photographs for the meeting. Each of these members are verifiable in their own right. It is the government ministers themselves that are contributing, not merely subsidiary companies. I do hope this will clarify the point, because this sort of work is what the world needs. MarcelBrandon (talk) 09:38, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Marcel, you seem to be very good at dodging the legitimate questions people have about this. There is a stark lack of legitimate references anywhere, and I don't see how you've addressed any of the points made by Peterkingiron, or several others here. Lukeno94 (talk) 18:55, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I have gone to a lot of effort writing this article, more than a day in fact because I believe the work is genuine and valuable.. I don't know chapter and verse about their meetings, where or everything they do - and don't understand why I am being treated like a criminal when merely offering valuable information to an encyclopaedia about a company at has in fact been in the media numerous times, and shows their own evidence of meetings and involvement with many high profile government officers around the world. Why is that so difficult to accept? Check the gallery and tell me at this number of ministers working as a conglomerate isn't notable? I do hope that an admin will see past the short sighted prejudice shown here. MarcelBrandon (talk) 19:52, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * are you suggesting that you are not personally connected to Athlone? I think it would be good in the interests of openness if you were to make this clear. Independent sources, ie substantial coverage received, not from your Athlone website are required.  These black and white photos are no evidence whatsoever.  Maybe some registration details from the UK companies house so that we can see some audited accounts might go a long way to dispel this cloud of suspicion? If it is a genuine charity then details of the registered charity number might also work?  nonsense  ferret  19:57, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * You may have gone to a lot of effort writing this article, but there have been some fantastically written hoaxes in the past. We're not asking for information on all of their actions and meetings - we're asking for some proof they are notable, from reliable sources. (Again, you're ducking every question we ask) A bunch of photos is not going to prove anything. You constantly namedrop all these officials - but you never once give a reliable source to back up your claim. Accusing myself and other editors of prejudice, when all we're doing is following guidelines that you're either unaware of, or neglecting to follow, is grossly unjust. Lukeno94 (talk) 21:57, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 01:50, 29 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - I don't see a reason why this conglomerate should stand by its own and have an article in wikipedia. I don't see the encyclopedic relevance of it on being on wikipedia. Wikipedia is not an advertisement magazine, or sponsorship partner for every company in the world. Even if the company is non-profit, for-profit or commercial company. Or even if the company engage into charitable works, the charity is notable, but it does not sustain the fact to the company itself. Eduemoni↑talk↓  01:56, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 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.