Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gülermak


 * 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 no consensus to delete, after extended time for discussion. However, as there is not consensus to keep, either, this article will be subject to renomination after a suitable period of time if it is not further improved with sources indicating the non-routine nature of the company's work. BD2412 T 05:40, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Gülermak

 * – ( View AfD View log )

I prodded this with "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing General notability guideline nor the more detailed Notability (companies) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. ". The creator, User:Jpbowen, expanded this with more references, but sadly, the added references still seem to be problematic - they are from very niche websites and worse, read like press-releases and their rewrites (ref is obviously written by the company itself ("What we do", etc.). I am afraid I still don't see what makes this company notable - it exists, it does business, and it has generated WP:ROUTINE coverage in form of press-releases and their reprints/rewrites. PS. A minor red flag: no article on Turkish Wikipedia. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 05:50, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  05:50, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  05:50, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  05:50, 5 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep – this is a well-established company founded in 1958 (63 years ago) that undertakes major construction projects internationally. There are multiple independent references to Gülermak in news articles (3,200 according to Google News), including with "Gülermak" in the title. The company is based in Turkey, where there is increasing press censorship and even Wikipedia has been blocked. Expecting the same level of press coverage compared to a western company is problematic and could even be construed as a form of censorship. WP:ROUTINE seems to apply to events rather than companies. Overall in the circumstances, I believe there are sufficient WP:ORGIND and WP:MULTSOURCES, including some in publications with their own Wikipedia entries, to warrant inclusion. A modicum of WP:COMMONSENSE would be good for a company that has been in existence for 63 years undertaking major construction projects around the world, including quite a few already on Wikipedia. —Jonathan Bowen (talk) 14:27, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:GOOGLEHITS aside, have you found any good references? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 04:35, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
 * @Piotrus: Let me reply in this case. The company has been mentioned several times on academic papers due to their works on excavation and tunnelling, and the company also became subject on several news due to their constructions and accidents (for example, this news is about Marşandiz train collision, and this says about employee salaries that didn't paid on a worksite operated by the company), but to be honest, I couldn't find a detailed coverage about the company (like, when this company founded, what did they do, etc.), other than their website (which is WP:PRIMARY indeed). After evaluating quality of search results - instead of quantity, I say probably keep, as the company is notable enough to get constant mentions on news and various academic papers. As a footnote, there's enough amount of articles on Turkish and English Wikipedia which didn't translated to another language, and therefore I would consider it as a "yellow warning flag" instead of a red flag. Ahmetlii (talk) 12:47, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
 * @Ahmetlii: Thank you. The issue is whether the sources pas WP:SIGCOV. You mention academic papers, but my review of those shows nothing beyond mentions in passing. Thank you for linking the two newspaper articles. The first one is very short and appears to be a rehash of a press release "...according to Gülermak,... the project on Gülermak's official website" and anyway it doesn't seem to be clearly about the company, but about some accident that involved something constructed by the company. The second concerns a controversy that involves the company, but also another company Çelikler İnşaat and the Ministry. If those are the best sources we have, I am afraid that's not enough for WP:NORG to be met, but I'd be happy to review additional sources found. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 04:11, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: I have included references to articles specifically on Gülermak and its projects from multiple sources in the article. —Jonathan Bowen (talk) 14:15, 21 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep A large and respectable construction company responsible for many major contracts such as the Golden Horn Metro Bridge. Applicable policies include: WP:ATD; WP:NEXIST and WP:PRESERVE.  See also WP:NOTCLEANUP. Andrew🐉(talk) 15:25, 7 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete - No indication this company has done anything except engage in routine business. Few passing mentions in Turkish media should not be enough for them to have a page on Wikipedia. -  GizzyCatBella  🍁  09:13, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: Gülermak is covered in many articles in media internationally. —Jonathan Bowen (talk) 10:20, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: Gülermak has been involved in constructing more than 175 km of underground tunnels and 80 underground stations, which I believe is not routine. —Jonathan Bowen (talk) 10:09, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
 * , Isn't it? Seems like stuff that constructions companies do. Tunnels, roads, buildings, bridges, etc. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 11:06, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: For clarification, I meant the numbers are not routine above. —Jonathan Bowen (talk) 22:10, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * , I am afraid I still don't follow. What numbers? And what is your metric for judging whether they are routine or not? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 05:49, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Gülermak's major works are typically large pieces of infrastructure which, by their nature, are unique designs which are run as a distinct project. This is the opposite of "routine".  In any case, whether they are routine or not is irrelevant because WP:MILL is neither policy nor guideline and so is not a valid reason to delete anything. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:14, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 15:44, 12 June 2021 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:59, 20 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep. The reasoning of Andrew convinces me. Just the linked construction projects illustrate the international notability of this company (cf. Pune Metro, Expressway S2 (Poland), Route 2020 (Dubai Metro)). Best, --ThT (talk) 07:35, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete We require references that discuss the company in detail and which also provides opinion/analysis/fact checking/investigation. None of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability. Being associated with projects doesn't automatically denote notability.  HighKing++ 13:12, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: There are peer-reviewed publications on the company's activities, especially in tunnelling. There are also news reports on aspects such as salaries. —Jonathan Bowen (talk) 12:17, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak delete While the company has been involved in major construction projects, most of the sources only mention the company, and are not in detail as required by WP:CORPDEPTH. ~Styyx Talk? ^-^ 18:54, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: I have added some further references, academic and Turkish news. —Jonathan Bowen (talk) 12:17, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment There are now 32 references in this article, a little overkill. Can you post links here to the best WP:THREE references because from what I can see, you've simply added yet more references that rely on announcements, I can't see anything that meets NCORP. <b style="font-family: Courier; color: darkgreen;"> HighKing</b>++ 19:12, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Here are two news items on the company in Turkish newspapers and a peer-reviewed journal paper on the company's activities: 1. 2.  3.  I don't believe that these rely on announcements. —Jonathan Bowen (talk) 12:12, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Neither of the news article provides in-depth information *on the company*, the merely mention the company in passing. Neither even has a brief description of profile of the company. The first article reports problems with train signalling and says nothing about the company other that mentions in the name in relation to a Partnership and a project. Fails CORPDEPTH. The second article discusses another project and complaints that the workers had not been salaries for a period of time. It mentions the company but there's not even a general description and the article does not provide in-depth information on the company and also fails CORPDEPTH. Finally, the paper is a technically detailed paper discussing the challenges faced by creating tunnels through various substances and in particular discusses the Kargi Kizilirmak Hydroelectric Project in central Turkey where a tunnel was driven through a mountain range. There is no discussion of the topic company whatsoever, also fails CORPDEPTH. <b style="font-family: Courier; color: darkgreen;"> HighKing</b>++ 13:38, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I guess we will have to agree to disagree on this one. But I would ask the question, should we be deleting the 124th international contractor in the world, according to Engineering News-Record (ENR) in 2020 (see ) at this stage of the article's life (started on 27 May 2021, just one month ago)? I suspect there is more suitable material in Turkish and not online that is difficult to access for a company like this that is based in Turkey. WP:PRESERVE would seem more appropriate at this stage rather than deletion before the article has had a chance to develop with editors who have more Turkish expertise, rather than deleting it out of hand now. Following WP:IMPERFECT, "Collaborative editing means that incomplete or poorly written first drafts can evolve over time into excellent articles." I would say, give this article a chance to develop with contributions from multiple editors before considering deletion. —Jonathan Bowen (talk) 15:49, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Hey, if the article isn't ready for mainspace as you seem to imply above, would you consider moving it to Drafts and work on it there? You can then submit it for review before it gets moved to mainspace. <b style="font-family: Courier; color: darkgreen;"> HighKing</b>++ 21:07, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * , WP:DRAFTification is always a reasonable alternative to deletion, and I am fine with such an outcome. <sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 05:13, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * According to WP:FAILN and WP:PRESERVE I suggest to let WikiProject Companies help. Therefore I added and . Best, --ThT (talk) 11:16, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Under WP:BEFORE:
 * C. Consider whether the article could be improved rather than deleted
 * 2. If the article was recently created, please consider allowing the contributors more time to develop the article.
 * The article was created on 27 May 2021‎ and proposed for deletion on 4 June 2021‎, after only 8 days, so I do not believe this procedure was followed. Adding would have been more appropriate at this stage. Thus, I think the correct WP:AFD procedure under WP:BEFORE should be followed before a deletion process is considered again. I added  and  to attract more Turkish editors who may have better access to further references in the meantime. —Jonathan Bowen (talk) 19:53, 29 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep, a major company that has been in business for over 60 years, the article is well-sourced. I also agree with the above comment that not enough time was given to allow it to be improved. The article has been improved significantly since nomination, let's allow more time for editors to work on it without fear of it being deleted. NemesisAT (talk) 15:59, 1 July 2021 (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.