Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BTS 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 keep. Consensus reached; KDS4444, please avoid the personal attacks. (non-admin closure) jcc (tea and biscuits) 21:31, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

BTS Group

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

References consist of WP:TRIVIALMENTIONs in trading websites, links to non-notable awards or awards of dubious notability ("Stevies"), refs. to the company's own website (not WP:INDEPENDENT), etc. Am not seeing enough here to qualify the article's subject as notable per WP:ORG or, therefore, WP:GNG. Article needs multiple, non-trivial references in reliable, independent sources in order to be retained. (The opaque business neologisms of the lede might qualify the article for deletion under G11, but am unsure of this so am bringing to AfD instead). KDS 4444 Talk  03:13, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep As the majority of references, although brief, seem to come from a variety of reputable sources I disagree with the deletion of the BTS Group Wikipedia page. the page seems to need updating, but a brief Google search brings up a wide range of references and pages that corroborate what is written here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hreeve11 (talk • contribs) 19:31, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * You can show us what some of these links are, yes? Otherwise this is just hot air in a cold wind— where's the beef, good sir? And being trivially mentioned, even by Bloomberg (see below), does not constitute grounds for notability— we need in-depth coverage, not just trivial mentions.  Where are they?  And if they do not exist, what grounds then for your !keep vote?  KDS 4444  Talk


 * Keep I disagree with the deletion of the BTS Group Wikipedia page. I would dispute that the majority of the references are trivial, coming from reputable sources such as Bloomberg, Reuters, and other independent websites.  [Aside: "trivial" is not a description of the nature of the company covering the subject, it is a descriptor of the KIND of coverage the company receives— which is still "trivial", even if Bloomberg and NASDAQ cover it— please see WP:TRIVIALMENTION to understand what I am talking about.   KDS 4444  Talk  }  I would also dispute that "Stevies" (Stevie Awards) are non-notable awards as they too have their own Wikipedia page. [Another aside: that Wikipedia page shows that they are an awards mill— that does not make their awards genuinely measures of notability.  Please understand this.  KDS 4444  Talk  ]  References to the company's own website could be cleaned-up but are consistent with the links on other Wikipedia pages to company websites. [Final aside: WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.  What else you got, for an IP user??  KDS 4444  Talk  ]  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.121.129.130 (talk) 04:35, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions.  sst  ✈  05:06, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions.  sst  ✈  05:06, 20 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete for now at best as there is not enough in-depth third-party sources overall for a better solid article. SwisterTwister   talk  06:30, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The article needs to explain in somewhat normal language what they actually do, but it is still a keep. The company is listed on the Stockholm Stock Exchange. I made a very quick search for sources and could only find one in-depth source on the company, this long article in Veckans Affärer on BTS and its CEO Henrik Ekelund. But there is also a large amount of routine coverage of quarterly reports, acquisitions, share value and so on: (Affärsvärlden),  (Svenska Dagbladet),  (Dagens Industri). And that is just from the Swedish busness press; there is more in international media. It is a problem in this context that the business press is still largely print-only or behind paywalls; they cater to people willing to pay for timely analysis and in-depth coverage. --Hegvald (talk) 15:56, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Aside: as I have now mentioned three times, that fact is irrelevant. / Aside: a thousand routine reports of stock holdings and share values isn't worth a single reliable independent in-depth article on the company, which I have yet to see. / Aside: that should not stop someone like yourself with almost 2,600 edits on the English Wikipedia since 2007 (sorry, that was mean) and who has access (?) to material from behind these paywalls from adding such reliable in-depth references to help prove the notability of this company.  If you don't do it, then their existence is left up to the mists of the Internet, and might as well not exist at all, therefore counting nothing towards notability (as near as I can see it so far).  KDS 4444  Talk
 * I removed the comments you inserted into mine and put them underneath in standard indented format. --Hegvald (talk) 13:32, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * As for this: "someone like yourself with almost 2,600 edits on the English Wikipedia since 2007 (sorry, that was mean)" -- If you thought it was mean, why did you write it in the first place and why did you strike it but keep it in the comment for everybody else to read? And what was the relevance or even the point of the comment? How was it "mean"? Are you suggesting that I have made too many edits? --Hegvald (talk) 14:44, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep and cleanup, company is listed on Stockholm Stock Exchange and seems to meet WP:GNG.--Prisencolin (talk) 20:36, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Being listed in the stock exchange is not a defining criterion for inclusion. How does it meet WP:GNG specifically?  You have not answered the question, as it were...  Not yet, anyway.   KDS 4444  Talk  08:41, 22 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep I believe the BTS Group article should be kept. A review of other Wikipedia articles covering global consulting firms such as Deloitte, PricewaterhouseCoopers, and KPMG reveals that the BTS Group article contains the same subject matter, is written in the same language, and cites similarly respectable third-party source references including Reuters, Bloomberg Businessweek, and Nasdaq, Inc..  Furthermore, dozens of Wikipedia editors have contributed to the article further validating its importance to the community.  While there may be some room to improve the article, I believe this work should be kept as a part of the Wikipedia library.]].--Nathan Ives (talk) 04:43, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * So says Nathan Ives, a WP:SPA dedicated to the preservation of this article. Do I really have to throw in WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS (again) and WP:INVOLVE (anew) here?  It seems I do. Neither argument for inclusion on these bases is usually considered viable.  So let me say it again, louder: can anyone show us multiple references by reliable independent secondary sources that cover this subject non-trivially?? Because if you cannot, then this article still should not be hosted here.   KDS 4444  Talk  08:39, 22 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Inserting your comments into those of others is not the way it is done in Wikipedia. We use indented comments for good reasons. Please change these comments to the normal indented format. Or are you expecting others to insert their replies into your already inserted comments? Or directly into your nomination? How do you expect that your system could be kept up for a couple of rounds or more? --Hegvald (talk) 09:37, 22 January 2016 (UTC) Edit: Fixed it myself in the case of the replies inserted into my comment above. --Hegvald (talk) 13:32, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep While this discussion is interesting, at its center appears to be a dispute between and several other editors as to the relevance or non-triviality of the references for the BTS Group Wikipedia page.  Since the back and forth over Wikipedia's formal definitions does not seem to be satisfying this group or at least KDS4444, I would offer a reference to KDS4444 authored Wikipedia pages such as Peter J. Pitchess Detention Center and Pop-up exhibition.  Assuming KDS4444 considers his pages to be well written and sourced, the BTS Group page exceeds the required standard.  The Peter J. Pitchess Detention Center page almost solely references the institution's own website and the Pop-up exhibition page is not much more than a sales pitch for the Banksy's Dismaland event.  To answer the charge that the Reuters, NASDAQ, and Bloomberg Businessweek mentions are trivial reveals an unfamiliarity with these organizations.  All but the very few largest companies in the world receive what KDS4444 would call trivial mentions by these organizations.  I would assert that the BTS Group mentions within these publications are not trivial by the standards set by these organizations... the standard I believe we should be using and not the apparently personal standard KDS4444 is asserting in his initial assertion and many rebuttals.  Our discussion should center on whether or not the BTS Group article is relevant, factual, unbiased, and important - something of interest and value to the Wikipedia community.  From the discussion, no argument has been made that it does not meet all of these criteria.  Furthermore, it appears that only a small, vocal/loud minority believes this article in some way does not meet the Wikipedia guidelines and that the majority of editors believes it does.  KDS4444, repeating yourself over and over does not make your argument more plausible or right.  The personal attacks don't either.--WikiEnthusiast2014 (talk) 18:00, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - Meets WP:GNG. Period.BabbaQ (talk) 15:02, 24 January 2016 (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.