Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Derwick Associates


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Mediran  talk to me! 09:11, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Derwick Associates

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This page exists only to promote a variety of unproven charges against the article subject, and was constructed entirely by one person recently. The article fails to meet notability guidelines WP:N, does not meet NPOV standards, and since almost all of the sources are low credibility blogs, cannot be attributed to reliable sources WP:V. FinanceReferee (talk) 22:41, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2012 December 3.  Snotbot   t &bull; c &raquo;  22:51, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep The argument for deletion is based on 1) a lack of WP:RS, 2) a lack of WP:N, and 3) WP:NPOV.
 * As far as sources go, there are at least 8 sources in this article that meet the standards of WP:RS
 * Globovision (According to the BBC, "the only terrestrial TV station still openly critical of the government. They were "fined in 2011 for a report about a prison riot that the authorities said 'promoted hatred and intolerance for political reasons.'")
 * Latin American Herald Tribune (Has been used as a reliable source before. See In the news/Candidates/July 2010)
 * El Universal (Discussed in th RS Noticeboard and described as "one of the leading newspapers". Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 55)
 * Últimas Noticias (This is probably the premier national newspaper in Venezuela. Definitely a WP:RS)
 * Law.com (This is merely used as a secondary source on a court case in which the facts are uncontested.)
 * El Venezolano (Appears to have a publication in Miami, Orlando, Houston, Panama, Costa Rica, and Venezuela, among other places. I would be surprised if it is not considered a WP:RS)
 * TJS.gov (.gov site, primary source, obvious WP:RS)
 * El Mundo (I think it goes without saying that El Mundo is a RS)
 * The following three sources have never been discussed and it is probably worth starting a discussion on the noticeboard:
 * Analitica (Has been used as a source on the talk page for Hugo Chavez. Talk:Hugo Chávez/Archive 21)
 * Etorno Inteligente
 * Soberania (soberania.org)
 * In terms of notability, Derwick is a multi-national, multi-billion dollar corporation comparable to Quanta Services, Fluor Corporation, or Jacobs Engineering Group, except it is Venezuelan. Notability Guidelines require that it have significant coverage that directly address the subject. The current draft of the page meets that requirement.
 * As far as WP:NPOV goes, all I can say is that the page accurately reflects the media coverage of the company. Justiciero1811 (talk) 01:04, 4 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - the company is notable per WP:COMPANY, and if there's WP:UNDUE weight on any particular allegations, then they should be trimmed appropriately: we should fix rather than delete the article. Altered Walter (talk) 20:40, 4 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Altered Walter (talk) 20:41, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. Altered Walter (talk) 20:41, 4 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 00:23, 11 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Seems to have significant coverage in media and is large enough to meet notability under WP:COMPANY AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 01:35, 12 December 2012 (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.