Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Favelle Favco 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.  MBisanz  talk 18:02, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Favelle Favco Group

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

The article was nominated for deletion in a multiple nomination at Articles for deletion/March 2008 Manhattan construction crane collapse, with the reason "I am also nominating the following related pages because they are two agencies that have no notability other than their involvement in the crane collapse (searching them on any search engine only comes up with their websites, yellow pages, or articles related to the accident". It was closed as "redirect", but I'm relisting this as it's unclear from the discussion whether the comments also apply to this article. My opinion is that the article can possibly be rescued as the company is listed on a stock exchange and other sources can be found via Google - either publications within the industry or reports about Malaysian companies - also that a redirect is unsuitable because there is almost no connection between the company and the suggested target article, and because the coverage relating to the accident (in which the company does not appear to have had a significant role) is relatively minor in proportion to the notability of the company. Peter&#160;James (talk) 00:06, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Tepid keep - It qualifies as sufficiently notable for a short article; I don't see any particular reason to link it to the crane collapse though. I bet one could link just about any construction firm anywhere to some kind of accident that garnered a rush of local coverage.  JohnInDC (talk) 01:23, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. Seems to meet GNG. Also found:
 * http://www.rigzone.com/search/sites/Favelle_Favco_Group13823.asp
 * http://www.theedgemalaysia.com/in-the-financial-daily/218393-favelle-favco-secures-rm110m-jobs.html
 * -- No unique  names  04:22, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:05, 20 September 2012 (UTC)


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 12:26, 27 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete for my reasons for nominating it in Articles for deletion/March 2008 Manhattan construction crane collapse (i.e. not being able to find sufficient evidence of notability other than the collapse). The two links Nouniquenames really do not prove WP:GNG. The Legendary Ranger (talk) 20:01, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Article is really about a crane collapse, and there isn't much sourceable independent information other than that. Vcessayist (talk) 23:59, 6 October 2012 (UTC)


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mr. Stradivarius  (have a chat) 03:39, 7 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. The company itself meets GNG, and only one line is about a crane collapse. However, even if the article was written about the crane collapse, the article could always be rewritten to be about the company itself. That alone would not be a valid reason to delete the article.--Tdl1060 (talk) 21:59, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete: The company does not meet the WP:CORPDEPTH requirements. The one incident that brought it coverage in the NYT does not get it past WP:GNG. The fact it's publicly listed is also not an indication in itself of notability. Thousands of companies are listed worldwide, and not all of them have received significant coverage in secondary reliable sources. The other sources cited in the article and above are mostly WP:ROUTINE coverage; where they go beyond routine, they are in industry publications of limited interest and circulation. As CORPDEPTH says, "attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability." --Batard0 (talk) 17:35, 18 October 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.