Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Honeywell 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. Not sure why it was relisted, with a very clear consensus to keep. (non-admin closure)  Onel 5969  TT me 21:02, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Honeywell Group

 * – ( View AfD View log  Group Stats )

Non-notable company. A WP:BEFORE search indicates [ no] significant coverage in [[WP:RS|reliable sources]]. The few mentions of the company [to be found] are, when not just passing mentions (therefore insufficient to pass WP:ORGCRITE), composed of blogs, press releases, and . Likewise, there is o depth of coverage in the sources provided- they are all primary and self-published, and so fails WP:CORPDEPTH. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi (talk • contribs)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 11:36, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 11:36, 11 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep As is so often the case in developing countries, the news landscape may be a bit patchy. Honeywell Group is a significant organisation in Nigeria and there is (IMO) sufficient third party coverage in Nigerian media, as evidenced as follows: MoU with regional government for development, JV with General Electric, Potential spin-off of subsidiaries, Legal dispute with bank, Agreement with US Trade and Development, Commendation by Nigerian government for social responsibility pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 12:10, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep notable in Nigeria, listed on the NSE. Certainly passes WP:NCORP ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 13:35, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Unrelated comment: Being listed in NSE doesn't translate to notability though. Darreg (talk) 23:23, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep I have edited the article to include sources with depth such as the Oxford business group, world economic forum and Ventures Africa and strongly believe the article should remain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SurajRokafela (talk • contribs) 12:55, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep As per what said. it does qualify WP:NCORP a little  WP:C/E may be needed but certainly, it is of encylopedic value.Celestina007 (talk) 22:39, 11 June 2017 (UTC).
 * Keep per sources listed by —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 07:22, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 09:03, 18 June 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.