Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/STFA 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. I see valid objections being raised to many of the sources presented here, but in some cases the interpretation of NCORP is excessively stringent. Ultimately at least three sources have been provided for which some agreement about meeting SIGCOV exists, and which lack a policy-backed challenge. Vanamonde (Talk) 05:20, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

STFA Group

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

does not seem notable Chidgk1 (talk) 21:01, 31 December 2022 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:48, 7 January 2023 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:42, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Turkey.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:02, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment: This was the last AfD of 2022. jp×g 16:15, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. WP:BEFORE throws up plenty of significant coverage in the Turkish newspapers of record, but is a little inaccessible because it's in Turkish. Fiachra10003 (talk) 03:52, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment -- Hurriyet and Sabah are the largest and second largest circulation dailies in Turkey. Milliyet is ninth largest. See List of newspapers in Turkey for details. Fiachra10003 (talk) 19:38, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi, this is a company therefore NCORP guidelines apply. As you know, "plenty of significant coverage" sounds good but it isn't enough for deciding. The content of each article is important and must be evaluated against NCORP criteria. We need to see links to sources. Can you link to some (two or three) that you believe meet NCORP criteria for establishing notability? Thank you.  HighKing++ 13:30, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Delete Most coverage appears to rely entirely on announcements and other sources that fails NCORP criteria. Happy to change my !vote if Fiachra10003 can find links to what he believes meets NCORP criteria, he might have spotted something I missed.  HighKing++ 13:30, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Please focus on the Hurriyet, Sabah (newspaper) , and Milliyet articles cited, all of which are in national daily newspapers and none of which rely on company announcements. Also, see the source assessment table below, and let me know what you disagree with. I've added links to google translations of each of the Turkish language sources to make it easier to review these. Fiachra10003 (talk) 17:00, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Daily Sabah is now considered an unreliable source Chidgk1 (talk) 16:43, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Response The first Hurriyet piece is an obituary for one of the founders Feyzi Akkaya, but it doesn't have an attributed author/journalist. We don't know who wrote that piece - that's a problem for WP:RS but since most of these articles you mention appear to omit the name of the journalist I'm going to ignore that. Looking solely towards NCORP - as per WP:CORPDEPTH the "depth of coverage must be considered" - the parts in this article that are *about* the company is little more than a summary. Nothing in-depth, no details. The very next section of NCORP is entitled "Significant coverage of the company itself" and it excludes (as an example) a biography and says that a biography of a CEO is a significant coverage for the Wikipedia article on the product or the CEO, but not a significant coverage on the company (unless the article or biography devotes significant attention to the company itself). So for me, an obituary has the same failings as a biography and fails NCORP criteria.
 * In a similar vein, this Milliyet reference announcing three new executives to join the topic company fails for the same reasons. It focuses on each of the executives but it is not significant coverage for the company itself and it provides no more than an overview/summary rather that detailed information about the company.
 * This Sabah reference, again, is about one of the founders and fails for the same reasons as above - fails CORPDEPTH and fails as it is not significant coverage of the company itself.
 * This other piece in Hurriyet (which lists the jounalist as Vahap Munyar) is strange as the point of view of the article appears to be from the company itself as a back-and-forth between the company and Hyundai. There's no attribution as to the information - so how can the journalist know that Hyundai though the price was too low or what the company response was? With no attribution of this type of information I don't see how it can be viewed as a reliable source to be honest.
 * Finally, one last thing that concerns me about Hurriyet as a source is that it specifically states that news contents cannot be quoted without permission, even by showing the source. I don't know how that would affect using this publication within Wikipedia but I imagine it would be a problem.  HighKing++ 18:22, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I've redrafted the WP:SIRS table above to respond to your points. Where did you see the news contents cannot be quoted without permission, even by showing the source point?  I didn't see any English language text in any of the Hurriyet articles cited.  In any case, we don't actually quote any texts, even in translation, in the article, so I think it's a moot point. Fiachra10003 (talk) 23:45, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * To avoid confusion, I've restored the SIRS table. Can I suggest that, rather than editing my comments on an AfD page, which might conflate my understanding with yours, you insert your own SIRS table, if you wish to? Fiachra10003 (talk) 03:57, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * You deleted my comment too. And again ignored the points raised.
 * I don't think I can agree that you've responded to any of my points? How exactly? All I can see is you've ignored everything that has been said, inserted a "word count" to make the articles appear bigger than they are, focus on a word count instead of the actual content and point out in-depth "Independent Content" and you didn't address the point about the section of NCORP entitled "Significant coverage of the company itself" nor Chidgk1's point that the Daily Sabah is not considered a reliable source. I've corrected the table. Perhaps you can now understand the points made and hopefully address each one.  HighKing++ 12:21, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.<ol> <li> The article notes: "STFA became a major Middle East contractor in the 1980s, and is currently engaged in several large projects in Libya. [32] In late 1985, a subsidiary of STFA won a consultancy commission to design an eight kilometer expressway and a 700 meter bridge in Niger. [33] STFA has also moved to establish ties with South Korean and Western contractors to lessen the impact of decreasing Middle East work. It is currently involved in joint projects with the York Manufacturing Company (US). [34] STFA has Turkey’s largest private shipyard, Sedef, which is building for the European market as well as STFA’s own line. In 1985 an STFA-led consortium was awarded a $550 million project for the second Bosphorus Bridge and a $30.9 million contract for a bridge over the Golden Horn. [35] STFA net assets for 1985 were estimated in the $250 million range."</li> <li> The article notes from Google Translate: "During the 1943-1973 period, STFA built many bridges, piers, ports, dams, tunnels and high voltage lines across Turkey, including Sivas-Erzurum railway bridges, Kuşadası, Bartın and Ereğli ports, and Kadıncık Hydroelectric Power Plant. The most important contribution of Sezai Türkeş and Feyzi Akkaya to Turkish contractors was to open up the heavy construction sector, which was usually built by foreign companies in Turkey at that time, to local contractors. In addition, the two contractors opened the doors of foreign countries to Turkish contractors as the first contractors to go abroad. STFA, which went abroad in order not to leave the existing machinery park idle and not to liquidate its personnel in the 1970s, when the Turkish economy was in a difficult situation, participated in the tender for the construction of the Tripoli port in Libya in 1972 and signed the first international contract at the beginning of 1973, after great efforts." Although the article is an obituary of a company co-founder, there is enough detailed coverage about the company to pass Notability (organizations and companies).</li> <li> The article notes: "When Ilker Keremoglu took the helm 11 years ago at STFA, one of Turkey's most venerable family companies, the half-built ski resort was the least of his problems.By the death aged 90 of Sezai Turkes, who co-founded the group in 1938, its core construction activities sprawled across 20 countries. Besides the ski centre, it owned 43 businesses ranging from a granite tile factory to a small port. Most made losses, but long-serving executives picked by the founder were avoiding reality. ... STFA's troubles were similar to those of many Turkish family-owned conglomerates, built by powerful founding fathers, which diversified into the wrong areas and struggled with the transition to the next generation." The article includes quotes from people affiliated with the company but there is enough independent analysis to meet Notability (organizations and companies) and Notability (organizations and companies).</li> <li> The article notes: "For example, one company could not use Turkish timber because it did not meet the specifications for a housing contract. STFA, which pioneered the Libyan market, had major problems and delays with its first job on Tripoli harbour, mainly because of supply difficulties. STFA, like some other companies, now has purchasing offices in London and Milan."</li> <li> The article quotes from STFA in one sentence. The 1992 article calls STFA "one of Turkey's biggest construction companies".</li> <li> The article mentions STFA in one sentence. The 2022 article notes: "Port Azure, touted as the first “mega-yacht-only marina” in Turkey, was opened last year by STFA, one of Turkey’s biggest conglomerates."</li> </ol>There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow STFA to pass Notability (organizations and companies), which requires "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard (talk) 07:19, 22 January 2023 (UTC) </li></ul> Relisting comment: Relisting a third time since a substantial !vote came in very late in the process. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, <b style="color:red">King of ♥</b><b style="color:red"> ♦</b><b style="color:black"> ♣</b><b style="color:black"> ♠</b> 08:29, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * In 1992, The New York Times called STFA "one of Turkey's biggest construction companies". In 2022, The New York Times called STFA "one of Turkey's biggest conglomerates". This strongly establishes notability. Cunard (talk) 07:19, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Response As per WP:SIRS each source must meet all of NCORP criteria - like significant, in-depth and with "Independent Content" *about* the company. Single sentence descriptions like you've highlighted might suggest notability, but doesn't establish notability. <b style="font-family: Courier; color: darkgreen;"> HighKing</b>++ 15:05, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * When a highly quality reliable source calls a company "one of Turkey's biggest construction companies" and "one of Turkey's biggest conglomerates", it is strongly established that the company should not be deleted for being non-notable. From Notability (organizations and companies), "When evaluating the notability of organizations or products, please consider whether they have had any significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education." It is clear that one of Turker's largest construction companies and conglomerates has had a significant effect on society, especially when this is supported by the quote I provided for about the important construction work the company did from 1943–1973. Cunard (talk) 00:07, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Eh? Where in the guidelines does it say that if a highly quality reliable source calls a company something, then it is strongly established that the company should not be deleted for being non-notable? Nonsense. And if the company has had a significant effect on society, please produce a reference/source that supports this. <b style="font-family: Courier; color: darkgreen;"> HighKing</b>++ 18:21, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * <p class="xfd_relist" style="margin:0 0 0 -1em;border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 2em;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Response That analysis ignores inconvenient parts of NCORP. I'll also point to (again) the section in NCORP entitled Significant coverage of the company itself which specifically highlights example of coverage that fails NCORP including as an example of a biography of a CEO as follows: Therefore, for example, an article on a product recall or a biography of a CEO is a significant coverage for the Wikipedia article on the product or the CEO, but not a significant coverage on the company (unless the article or biography devotes significant attention to the company itself). So lets look at the latest sources in detail.
 * The reference entitled "Turkey's Super Rich" is about ... well, rich Turkish people. It includes profiles of many rich Turkish people including the founders of the topic company. The references to financial details relative to the topic company originate from the company's published accounts and the rest to the Middle East Economic Digest (MEED) which for the most part simply regurgitates press releases with no major analysis/commentary/opinion. No "Independent Content" and this piece is neither in-depth nor significant (despite the blanket of such claim over all of these sources). The piece is not about the company, it is a bio of the founders (see above which that also fails). This reference fails CORPDEPTH and ORGIND.
 * I've dealt with the Hurryiet piece above already, no need to repeat it as it makes no effort to counter the previous points raised. In summary, it is neither "detailed" nor in-depth, it is a summary or a couple of sentences.
 * This summary conveniently omits the fact that The Financial Times piece is entirely based on a back and forth interview with Iker Keremoglu who took over the company when the original founders died. There is nothing in this piece that is the opinion/analysis/etc of the journalist, simply regurgitating the interview. Fails ORGIND.
 * The MEED piece is a mention-in-passing and is neither significant nor in-depth, fails CORPDEPTH. I have looked at maybe 20 MEED pieces and they're either mentions-in-passing or they regurgitate announcements. I suppose that why MEED is a "Digest".
 * Again, it is conveniently omitted that the NYT piece isn't about the company and simply includes the following quote from Mukrem Erkin, the head of STFA. "There will be plenty of opportunities," said Mukrem Erkin, head of STFA, one of Turkey's biggest construction companies, "but no money for three, four, five years." Fails CORPDEPTH, is not significant, is not in-depth. It is nonsense to even suggest that this source meets *all* of NCORP's criteria (as per WP:SIRS).
 * The final NYT piece is another single sentence mention-in-passing. Fails for the same reason as the above NYT piece.
 * None of these references are any better than the ones previously mentioned and all to date fail NCORP criteria for establishing notability. <b style="font-family: Courier; color: darkgreen;"> HighKing</b>++ 15:05, 22 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Weak keep looked at ALL the sources and descriptions above, I think it's just enough for GNG. Would need a few more big sources, but I think it's ok. Oaktree b (talk) 16:55, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Hey, which particular two sources (because we don't combine as per WP:SIRS? And do you mean enough for NCORP? <b style="font-family: Courier; color: darkgreen;"> HighKing</b>++ 18:26, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I was looking at the Huriyet, but if we can't combine sources, that's about all I find. I just go for GNG, it's the lowest common denominator for notability. NCORP is above that for notability I suppose, in the hierarchy. Oaktree b (talk) 18:37, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * There's coverage about them building a rail line in Qatar, such as . It's not substantial, but there are enough mentions of it, we could use them to build an article. Oaktree b (talk) 18:49, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Daily Sabah is not a reliable source Chidgk1 (talk) 19:17, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * You have mentioned this before. Are you relying on this discussion? In any case, as per our above discussion in this AFD, I don't think anyone is relying on Daily Sabah here. Fiachra10003 (talk) 22:43, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Reliable sources/Perennial sources says Daily Sabah is unreliable. But now you have improved the article thanks I don’t have a view on whether the article should be deleted or not. Chidgk1 (talk) 13:00, 23 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment: Each of, , and meet the "deep coverage" requirement of Notability (organizations and companies), which says, "Deep or significant coverage provides an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization. Such coverage provides an organization with a level of attention that extends well beyond brief mentions and routine announcements, and makes it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about the organization." The quotes I provided show that the sources have provided a detailed overview, discussion, and analysis of STFA Group. While some of the sources discuss other topics (like the co-founder) or contain quotes from people affiliated with the subject, it is my opinion that there is enough significant independent discussion and analysis in each source about STFA Group to meet Notability (organizations and companies). For example,  notes, "STFA's troubles were similar to those of many Turkish family-owned conglomerates, built by powerful founding fathers, which diversified into the wrong areas and struggled with the transition to the next generation."" Cunard (talk) 00:07, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Response Again (and I feel like a cracked record so apologies), you're ignoring the subsection of NCORP entitled Significant coverage of the company itself which specifically highlights example of coverage that fails NCORP (coverage which isn't *about* the company but tangentially related). For example, a biography of a CEO as follows: Therefore, for example, an article on a product recall or a biography of a CEO is a significant coverage for the Wikipedia article on the product or the CEO, but not a significant coverage on the company (unless the article or biography devotes significant attention to the company itself). Can you address that point? As for Hurriyet, you've ignored the points I made - continuing to say it meets NCORP won't change the fact that it is a orbituary for the founder. As for Strauss 2010, once you exclude content that originated from the company/interview, there's nothing left. Even the long quote you extracted originally shows it is all from the interview and fails ORGIND. It's all very well chopping a quote so as to exclude the fact that the information was provided via a quotation and then saying here's in-depth info which meets ORGIND, but that bubble pops as soon as someone else actually reads the article. <b style="font-family: Courier; color: darkgreen;"> HighKing</b>++ 18:21, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * As you say, "... (unless the article or biography devotes significant attention to the company itself)." One obituary devotes half its contents to a discussion of the company, not the founder; the other is 70% company history, 30% founder's life. I think it's better for !voters to review the content of the articles themselves and form their own view. To my mind, the Hürriyet 2004 piece is more clearly WP:SIGCOV. Even though less of the article is about STFA, the treatment of the company's history is more comprehensive than in the Sabah obit. Fiachra10003 (talk) 21:55, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Following up on 's point, one common misconception I see on here is that things like WP:NOTINHERITED, WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:BLP1E, etc. are valid reasons to deny coverage of a topic that has received significant coverage entirely. No, they don't say that we shouldn't have an article on something; the question is just where the article belongs. If an obituary fails WP:CORPDEPTH, then retitle and restructure the article to be about the founder. (I'm not saying actually do that, just that it's not a valid reason for deletion when no article on the founder exists. Neither am I suggesting this obituary actually fails CORPDEPTH, just that it wouldn't matter even if it did.) -- <b style="color:red">King of ♥</b><b style="color:red"> ♦</b><b style="color:black"> ♣</b><b style="color:black"> ♠</b> 23:37, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I'd say the founder is notable for sure. <b style="font-family: Courier; color: darkgreen;"> HighKing</b>++ 11:34, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Which founder? There are two - ST and FA.  See the first section of the article. In either case, I don't think available sources support their individual notability.  When I searched for them, almost everything that came up was about the company, not them, plus a little about their family and philanthropic activities.  Typical civil engineers: they seem to have poured their lives into their business and their families.  Fiachra10003 (talk) 12:10, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Different notability guidelines and interpretations for people - see BIO. <b style="font-family: Courier; color: darkgreen;"> HighKing</b>++ 20:20, 24 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep, it’s pretty clear that no reasonable interpretation of WP:CORPDEPTH can exclude the vast quantity of non-routine coverage available in Turkish media of this company, clearly they pass WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. Devonian Wombat (talk) 02:53, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Can you link to two specific sources that meet NCORP taking into consideration the issues raised above? There are more sections than CORPDEPTH being discussed. Also, saying there's a "vast quantity" of coverage implies combining sources - this is contradictory to WP:SIRS. <b style="font-family: Courier; color: darkgreen;"> HighKing</b>++ 12:08, 25 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep per 's source analysis showing that the topic meets WP:NCORP. Or, if you don't accept that, ignore WP:NCORP per the following reasoning:
 * WP:NCORP motivates its emphasis on the quality of sources -- tightening the GNG's independence, depth, and reliability requirements -- as follows: to prevent gaming of the rules by marketing and public relations professionals ... to address some of the common issues with abusing Wikipedia for advertising and promotion.
 * In this instance, I see no concerns about gaming of the rules or promotion with the article as it stands. While not perfect, it is not promotional. There are no cleanup tags on the article, no complaints on the talk page, and no one in this discussion is making WP:PROMO- or WP:COI-based arguments.
 * On the other hand, we have reliable sources refering to the company with phrases like "one of Turkey's biggest construction companies", "one of Turkey’s biggest conglomerates", and "one of Turkey's most venerable family companies". One can infer that people might reasonably look to obtain information about such a company from an encyclopedia, and reasonably expect to find it in Wikipedia as such.
 * Therefore, if we're using WP:NCORP as a justification for deleting the article, when the article does not suffer from the issues that motivate NCORP, NCORP is preventing us from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, and we should ignore it in this instance. Jfire (talk) 05:15, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * That doesn't make any sense. NCORP and GNG are the same thing, just NCORP provides detailed explanations on how to apply GNG. If it fails NCORP, it also fails GNG. Which means what you're really saying is WP:IAR and lets just keep this topic anyway, notability guidelines be damned. <b style="font-family: Courier; color: darkgreen;"> HighKing</b>++ 13:14, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I think his argument could be summarized as follows (not saying I agree or disagree with it): NCORP prescribes certain hard requirements in an attempt to uphold soft principles. Per WP:LAWYER, it is more important to follow the spirit of the rules than the letter of the rules. If the letter of the rules says that the sources do not meet NCORP, but this is not the type of company that the spirit of NCORP is intended to keep out, then GNG can be interpreted in a way that is not necessarily compliant with the strict letter of NCORP. -- <b style="color:red">King of ♥</b><b style="color:red"> ♦</b><b style="color:black"> ♣</b><b style="color:black"> ♠</b> 22:34, 27 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment. The article has greatly changed in the last week or so.  Can I suggest that editors read the article, and peruse the citations, with fresh eyes? Fiachra10003 (talk) 20:14, 28 January 2023 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.