Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Derwick Associates (2nd nomination)


 * 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. The valid issues brought up by the folks opining to delete should be dealt with through normal editing. J04n(talk page) 11:59, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Derwick Associates
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I'm re-nominating this for deletion because, with all due respect to the editors involved in the last decision, it simply doesn't seem notable and in fact is verging on being an attack page. The bulk of the article is just an attack on the company, and from my examination of the references so far there appears to have been misrepresentation of what some of them actually say. For example one section implies that Derwick are responsible for two power plants being abandoned and non-operational, but the cited reference from El Universal states that Derwick delivered the plant machinery in a timely manner and turned it over to Corpoelec for installation. While it's true that Derwick delivered the plants and that they're not working, the article links one to the other and this is not in fact the case. Most of the other cited references in the "scandal" section seem to come from one journalist who, it is fair to say, appears to have a bee in his bonnet.

A related point in notability is that WP:ORG says "Sources which primarily discuss allegations of unlawfulness shall not be considered when assessing an organization's notability per this guideline." If it wasn't for the alleged scandal nobody would have heard of Derwick Associates; there appears to be a complete lack of secondary sources talking about anything else. --FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 21:34, 4 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment This nomination was not properly formatted and had not been noticed as a result. I have properly formatted it and transcluded it on today's log. jcgoble3 (talk) 06:52, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Derwick Associates has a sizable amount of coverage and the article reflects this. It has been reviewed by uninvolved users in both an RfC and on the RSN and progress has been made. If there are miscellaneous translation issues then they should be brought up on the talk page. I created a section on the Talk:Derwick Associates page, and although it was deleted, I restored it to ask for more concerns about particular sources. The company is a large, multinational corporation with huge contracts and has received much coverage. Justiciero1811 (talk) 22:17, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * "Sources which primarily discuss allegations of unlawfulness shall not be considered when assessing an organization's notability per this guideline." Derwick do not have huge coverage. In fact outside the writings of Cesar Batiz and Alek Boyd their coverage verges on nil.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 17:15, 16 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep Just because a corporation has a good amount of problems with the law doesn't mean it is not notable. The policy should apply more to smaller companies who may have sued a large company, therefore involving them in a (usually smaller) news source. The notability is there and the independent, reputable sources are covering the company. It is already established that it is a multinational organization and has huge contracts. Dreambeaver  (talk) 01:10, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't see where it's been established that it's a multinational corporation or that it has huge contracts. It only seems to operate in Venezuela, the contracts it's carried out are huge in comparison to my bank balance but pretty small in the business world, and I just don't see the notability. To me it looks like one journalist (Batiz) has it in for Derwick, otherwise nobody would ever have heard of the company. There are also no indications that the company is having legal troubles, just unsupported claims by Batiz/Boyd.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 11:14, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The more applicable section on WP:ORG for you to take a look at would be this: "The organization’s longevity, size of membership, major achievements, prominent scandals, or other factors specific to the organization should be considered to the extent that these factors have been reported by independent sources". If they were a small company involved in illegal acts, and were only in the news for said acts, it would be more applicable to what you were suggesting (see WP:CRIME). Dreambeaver  (talk) 23:26, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * So what else are they in the news for?--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 12:47, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * "pretty small in the business world" - companies of that size are likely to be notable. Peter&#160;James (talk) 01:06, 22 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete This looks like an attack page created by User:Justiciero1811 on 20:27, 25 November 2012 (UTC). Derwick Associates has no coverage and is not notable enough to deserve a Wikipedia entry. Based on public records the company is very small and not notable. The press coverage comes from gloried blogs and there are no official sources of information. There is a lack of official sources apart from the blogs talking about Derwick Associates. The alleged scandal seems to have been manufactured by the same blogs. After looking at the Internet Archive, I was unable to find any other information on Derwick Associates that precedes the creation of the blogs  Lawson1129  (talk) 09:48, 17 February 2013 (GMT)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lawson1129 (talk • contribs)
 * Note: Lawson1129 has been blocked as a sockpuppet of the nominator. Lawson1129 is also checkuser-confirmed as having used used several other sockpuppets. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:11, 21 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete Agree with the above. Lack of notability. With all the respect this company is not important or large enough to deserve an entry. The whole article and history looks like a vendetta or attack page. Delete. (talk) 10:12, 18 February 2013 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harvestflamingo (talk • contribs)
 * Note: Harvestflamingo has been blocked as a sockpuppet of the nominator. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:11, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: Lawson1129 and Harvestflamingo are definitely socks of someone, but it isn't me. --FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 21:37, 22 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete When it comes to notability, and bearing in mind that "Sources which primarily discuss allegations of unlawfulness shall not be considered when assessing an organization's notability per this guideline," can someone show me some coverage of Derwick that even comes close to meeting the criteria?--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 15:04, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note to closing administrator: this !vote is from the nominator. jcgoble3 (talk) 21:28, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note to closing administrator: Additionally, in case this discussion is closed without further investigation, it is highly suspicious that two user have been created to only vote on this debate and agree with FergusM1970 (see contributions histories of Harvestflamingo and Lawson1129). Their level of involvement and relation to the page is questionable. Dreambeaver  (talk) 23:26, 19 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:38, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:39, 19 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. There are problems with tone throughout the article, and I think there is a bit of WP:UNDUE weight on the scandals and shenanigans - mainly because there isn't much detail about other activities, such as the Caracas project. But that's an issue to be fixed by cleaning up the article - and AFD is not for cleanup. Quote all the policies you want, but it's clear to me that this company is important enough to have been noted by multiple reliable sources - and thus is notable by our rules. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 14:53, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LlamaAl (talk) 00:21, 21 February 2013 (UTC)



The Librarian at Terminus (talk) 20:35, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. This page does seem to have been created specifically as an attack page, as there is very little information about the company itself. The timing of its creation is also interesting. Local disagreements between company and employer don't seem to warrant notability.
 * Not necessarily as an attack page, but one created because of the controversy, maybe by someone unfamiliar with some aspects of Wikipedia policy. Peter&#160;James (talk) 01:06, 22 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. This article doesn't seem to be a fair evaluation of Derwick or its history... Looking at the news reports the article draws on, it's clear that most of the sources involved aren't reliable, and are usually a single person. There are Keep and Delete nominators above that agree with that. We should strive to keep wiki articles clear and fair presentations of facts, rather than mazes of inference and bias. Createmark (talk) 20:38, 21 February 2013 (UTC) — Createmark (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Reliability of sources has already been discussed at Talk:Derwick Associates. Any specific sources you have a problem with? Peter&#160;James (talk) 01:06, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The sources themselves seem to be about as reliable as can be expected from a country with Venezuela's issues. What's more problematic are the facts that a) the articles are overwhelmingly the work of one journalist who seems to be long on rhetoric and short on evidence and b) some of the references don't actually say what the article creator is claiming they do. For example in one case the article creator cited a reference to support his claim that two power stations contracted from Derwick still aren't operating. In fact the reference made clear that all Derwick were contracted to do was deliver the components, which the reference says they did in a timely manner. The subsequent failure to install them was someone else's fault, but the article had been written to make it appear that Derwick were responsible. In fact this example is what first made me think the article was an attack piece. --FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 11:45, 25 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete per nominator. –BuickCenturyDriver 21:51, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep in agreement with UltraExactZZ. There is sufficient RS to warrant a page. Also, there appears to be massive fraud in this AfD page from the nominator. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 22:19, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * "Massive fraud"? Oh please. --FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 13:28, 23 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. From reading over the talk pages there seems to be a lot of hostility about this article. My overall opinion is the article is a mess and has little notability. The sources aren't the most reliable I've ever seen, which is also mentioned on the talk page Talk:Derwick Associates. Therefore I'd say this is an obvious delete. 31.68.204.143 (talk) 20:45, 24 February 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.