Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Horasis (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   delete. The issue here is not the coverage, but whether it is significant enough to warrant the organisation having an article on Wikipedia. The consensus seems to be that the coverage of Horasis is not significant enough to meet WP:ORG, and so the consensus is to delete. Should significant coverage at reliable sources be forthcoming in the future, the article can be recreated, but the coverage is not there at the moment --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 08:27, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Horasis
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Previously deleted at Articles for deletion/Horasis however G4 deletion of the current incarnation was declined on the grounds that the article is substantially different. Whilst it is true that some of the text is new I do not believe that the issues of raised in the last AFD have been satisfactorily addressed and cannot see any that any element of WP:ORG is satisifed. The majority of the sources cited are primary and those that are secondary mention Horasis only in passing, usually just being namechecked as a sponsor of the events. Taking the first five non-primary sources cited in the article:


 * "Interview with Frank Jurgen Richter and Pamela C. M. Mar" Horasis not mentioned at all (it is an article on a book written by one of their employees)
 * "Enthusiasm, Tempered With Concern, About Business in India" The New York Times, July 8, 2009 - Horasis mentioned once "...sponsored by Horasis"
 * "Germans fear backlash as China ties cool Financial Times, November 21, 2007 article behind paywall
 * "Meeting aims to boost EU-China business" USA Today, November 5, 2007 - Horasis mentioned once as the employer of a person giving a quote "...said Frank-Juergen Richter, president of Horasis, a Geneva, Switzerland-based group that is organizing the gathering"
 * "Global Bailout" Newsweek, November 9, 2007 Horasis mentioned once as the venue for the interview "...he spoke with NEWSWEEK's George Wehrfritz at the Horasis China Europe Business Meeting in Frankfurt"

Indeed I could find no non-trivial mentions in all the sources supplied so it is no surprise that a Google news search draws a complete blank as well. It is possible that some of the individual Global Summits have standalone notability but I am convinced that there is none for the sponsoring body. Nancy talk  15:04, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. That Google News search is only for the last 30 days. Try clicking on the "news" link spoon-fed at the top of this discussion for a proper search, which finds 81 news articles. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:01, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks Phil, my error although in the 81 I am struggling to find anything non-trivial. Nancy  talk  16:15, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:15, 10 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep – According to the last AFD this article is completely new and not only some of the text. So the decline of G4 deletion was correct.

Cited sources are not trivial or incidental coverage according to WP:ORG. They reflect the notice which Horasis has attracted with its work. Here the evaluation of the criticized sources according to their content and their citation in the article:
 * "Interview with Frank Jurgen Richter and Pamela C. M. Mar" – cited as source for the fact mentioned that the founder of Horasis was a former Director at the World Economic Forum
 * "Enthusiasm, Tempered With Concern, About Business in India" The New York Times, July 8, 2009 – here the full quote: At the opening reception last week of the Global India Business Meeting, a two-day conference sponsored by Horasis, a kind of junior league World Economic Forum for the emerging market set; the entire NYT-article is about the Horasis Global India Business Meeting, which was organized by Horasis
 * "Germans fear backlash as China ties cool Financial Times, November 21, 2007 – this article is not behind a paywall, but you have to register at FT.com to read it for free
 * "Meeting aims to boost EU-China business" USA Today, November 5, 2007 – as the title states: the article is entirely about the Horasis Global China Business Meeting 2007 and its’ results, Horasis is mentioned as the organizer of it
 * "Global Bailout" Newsweek, November 9, 2007 – cited as source for the then upcoming financial crises which influenced the meeting


 * So the sources cited are not just passing or namechecking Horasis but significant coverage according to WP:N. For NYT, Financial Times or USA Today no one can doubt the reliability and independence of Horasis. In addition to the cited sources here the [Google news search] – obviously not blank.


 * One aspect of notability hasn’t been considered yet at all: the participants at the Horasis events. There are Prime Ministers, the Secretary-General of UCTAD, and many Ministers, influential politicians and CEO´s of major global corporations who Horasis gathers at its events. So according to WP:N Horasis has been receiving significant attention in the political and economic sphere globally for many years, an unmistakable sign for notability according to WP:ORG.

[
 * As you find on the Horasis talk page many of these arguments had already been given there without any reply. The request for it was answered with this AFD.Dewritech (talk) 19:40, 10 May 2010 (UTC) — Dewritech (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * None of the sources you articles you refer to above amount to more than trivial or incidental coverage. As I said in the nom, it may be the case that some of the individual Global Forums may have independent notability but Horasis itself does not. Nancy  talk  08:16, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * But you can not separate the Summits from Horasis – these meetings are the results of their work. So if you consider these meetings have notability (e.g. because of the participants) then it’s the work of Horasis which obtains notability, without them no such meetings.Dewritech (talk) 21:49, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. I agree with Dewritech. The current article on Horasis should not be deleted as it portays an organisation that brings together some of the decision makers at the global level. Many of the sessions at such events take place behind closed doors and it would not be easy the the regular media to report on them. In fact that is one of the strengths of Horasis events- to provide a platform where decision makers can speak their mind.Candyisdandy (talk) 02:44, 11 May 2010 (UTC) — Candyisdandy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * I can absolutely understand why you admire the work of the organisation but can you show any grounds in Wikipedia policy for keeping the article? Nancy  talk  08:16, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia policy does say that smaller organizations can be notable, just as individuals can be notable, and arbitrary standards should not be used to create a bias favoring larger organizations. Candyisdandy (talk) 08:46, 11 May 2010 (UTC) — Candyisdandy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * True, but they still need to meet WP:ORG Nancy  talk  17:05, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


 * (copied from the talk page) Hi everyone, I am the Deputy Editor-in-chief of the Spanish Magazine Global Asia "Global Asia". I know Horasis since several years, it is a notable organization hosting peer-to-peer events for CEOs. We carried several articles (in Spanish language) about meetings held by Horasis. I myself have written articles on the "Global China Business Meeting 2009, Lisbon: Globalizing Chinese Companies (Spanish)" and I have interviewed several of the participants. We find these Meetings very attractive as we can interview top CEOs from around the world, but specially from emerging economies such as China, Brazil, Russia, etc. In our currently issue, there is an article written by the Director General of the Spanish Asia House (Casa Asia) on "The 2010 Global India Business Meeting will be held in Madrid". I strongly believe that the current article on Horasis should not be deleted, Horasis is a first-class organization which gathers top CEOS, decision and policy makers as well as global media leaders. Thanks to Horasis I have met several editors and journalists from leading business and economic magazines.Mbolekia (talk) 09:59, 13 May 2010 (UTC) — Mbolekia (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * (copied from the talk page) Hi all I don't often comment. But an entirely different search shows Wiki pages for Chatham House, OCDE, Fabian Society (etc) are indeed similar to that of Horasis - without looking into the 'depths' of Wiki definitions.  As noted above, and in the further discussions, Horasis simply 'gets people [top people] together for discussions about the future'.  TV commercials in the UK says of "Ronseal" - it does what it says on the tin - - This may seem a trivial comment to make - but Horasis is a mechanism for meetings creation at very senior international level that address global issues: it does what it says on the tin ie just what it says in the Wiki entry.  I vote for it to stay, yet be updated as new facts are found, such as new meetings announced, and old meetings sumarised.  Bye - John  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnbkidd (talk • contribs) 10:57, 15 May 2010 (UTC)   —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dewritech (talk • contribs)  — Dewritech (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Whilst being basically verifiable, I've yet to find the significant independent coverage required to justify an entire article. I have no objection to the organization being covered in a broader article, with a depth proportional to the sources. It seems that the coverage is largely that of the various meetings sponsored by Horasis. The press are using the meetings to write pieces that are ultimately useful sources for our economy-related articles (USA Today for example, and probably with the Global Asia links above; alas they require a subscription). But I don't think there's enough directly about the meetings or Horasis. Marasmusine (talk) 14:02, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Hi Maramusine, according to WP:N: Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material – Horasis doesn't have to be necessarily the core issue. And According to WP:ORG: When evaluating the notability of organizations, please consider whether it has had any significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education – with the participants coming together at the meetings organized by Horasis it has notabiliy. Dewritech (talk) 18:48, 15 May 2010 (UTC) — Dewritech (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Yeah, I think I am leaning towards a "keep" actually. There's suddenly a lot of new accounts from people in related groups (no disrespect intended; they're making valid arguments) so for balance I'd also like to see the opinions of established editors too. Marasmusine (talk) 08:39, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 02:55, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep I know the people of Horasis from previous events and while looking into the Horasis meeting in Ljubljana this weekend I discovered this discussion. Of course my personal experiences with Horasis and my conviction that Horasis is an organization with notability are absolutely irrelevant according to WP:ORG. But I found a source that is not: the Government of Slovenia: “Global Russia Business Meeting”. Horasis with all the top-level meetings it is putting together certainly merits a Wiki article.Documentarybuff (talk) 22:53, 15 May 2010 (UTC) — Documentarybuff (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.

Comment: Last weekend the President of Slovenia, Danilo Türk, attended the Horasis Global Russia Business Meeting in Ljubljana - another prove of notability (which will be added to the article next week as over this weekend I’ll have only limited web-access). Dewritech (talk) 07:18, 21 May 2010 (UTC) — Dewritech (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment: I have notified the participants of Articles for deletion/Horasis about this AfD. Having reviewed the deletion nomination and the sources, I cannot find nontrivial coverage in reliable sources, with the exception being this article from mzz.gov.si which reads like a press release. Therefore, delete. Cunard (talk) 22:04, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: As stated below there are many good references. And you can not decline a significance of this governmental statement by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Slovenia just because of its style! Dewritech (talk) 19:37, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. There are many good references, but many of those appear to be trivial to me.  It is up to the community to decide whether that matters.  Traditionally, many sources meant notability.  However, the consensus seems to have changed recently to require not just good sources, but significant mentions. Bearian (talk)
 * Comment: Hello Bearian, thanks for your approval of the references. As you wrote it’s the open question whether they are sufficient or not to make Horasis notable. But what is with the fact, that Horasis obviously is notable enough for e.g. several Prime Ministers or the Secretary General of UNCTAD (besides of many others) to attend the meetings? The weekende before last the President of Slovenia spoke at a meeting. And isn’t it a significant effect according to WP:ORG if Horasis brings together influential politicians and CEOs from different parts of the world for years now? Dewritech (talk) 20:26, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - I'm sorry to all the people who want to see this article kept, but I'm simply not seeing significant coverage in independent reliable sources: all the sources that have been provided only mention the company briefly. What's needed is a source that focuses on them directly. The only ones which do that seem to be press releases, which are unreliable. It's not a clear-cut case, as there are indications of notability here - in particular, the business meetings have received some attention from independent sources - but there just doesn't seem to be enough to write an article on the company itself. Robofish (talk) 01:42, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: Horasis as an organization which is able to gather at its meetings high-profile people from all around the world, who obviously believe in the notablility of this organization (otherwise they wouldn't come). There are many reports in different newspapers (also many non-English). And now it's the question of notability... I'm new here and this is my first article (for those who constantly points out the number of my contribs). Also I learned a lot about Wiki standards over the last weeks I still wonder, looking at the meeting-paricipants, why this organization should not obtain notability. And in some ways I had expected a different culture of controversy. Beeing nominated for AfD because of asking a critic questions on the talk page was a little surprise. Hopefully this is not the standard answer. I will see in the future - maybe here or at at least at my next articles. Thanks to all who like this article and thanks to all the critics - although I still don't agree. Dewritech (talk) 20:25, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - I don't see significant independent sources to establish notability, This version of the article still reads spamy, and if kept, should be rewritten by someone who does not have connection with the organization. Racepacket (talk) 04:21, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Request: Hi Racepacket, which of the given sources do you deny reliability? What in particular makes the article spamy in your eyes? And indicates your recomendation "if kept" that you actually see that there is notability? Where do you see the NPOV beeing violated? Dewritech (talk) 08:21, 26 May 2010 (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.