Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Steuart 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. North America1000 03:01, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

George Steuart Group

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

G11. Unambiguous advertising or promotion Creditor8989 (talk) 09:03, 11 October 2017 (UTC) Creating deletion discussion for George Steuart Group
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions.  M assiveYR   ♠  09:17, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions.  M assiveYR   ♠  09:17, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep satisfies the criteria of WP:NCOMPANY, see, , , , , , , , , , &  for starters. Dan arndt (talk) 12:57, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:23, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. Article needs a cleanup but the well-sourced claim to be Sri Lanka's oldest business is surely a credible claim to encyclopedic notability. (n.b., your first link there is a semi-automated Bloomberg profile that gets created for every business under the sun and is not a credible reference for meeting WP:N.)  A  Train talk 19:59, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Struck vote. I was swayed by HighKing.  A  Train talk 19:33, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * unstruck. I have been swayed yet again, this time by the sources located by the intrepid User:Dan arndt. I am a veritable weathervane of opinions.  A  Train talk 11:05, 23 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep Excellent sleuthing by, changing to Keep. -- HighKing ++ 13:19, 23 October 2017 (UTC) Delete None of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability. The sundaytimes reference is not intellectually independent and relies exclusively on an interview with the CEO with no independent analysis or opinion, therefore fails as a PRIMARY source and fails WP:ORGIND. The other references are mainly company announcements or business-as-usual announcements or more interviews and fail WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND. I'm happy to review my !vote if two intellectually independent references can be found that meet the criteria for establishing notability.  -- HighKing ++ 10:08, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * You make a good point there,, I hadn't examined that source well enough.  A  Train talk 19:33, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment  have located a number of reputable independent sources and included them in the article, which I believe clearly establish the company as being notable. There have also been a number of books published about the company as well. Dan arndt (talk) 03:56, 23 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep per recent article improvements. A historic company, reasonable coverage & contents. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:04, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep well renowned company in Sri Lanka. --L Manju (talk) 07:53, 23 October 2017 (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.