Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sanne 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The result was Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) IceWelder  &#91; &#9993; &#93; 10:18, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Sanne Group

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The topic fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. The three non-primary sources presently used are already WP:RUNOFTHEMILL articles rehashing press releases. A WP:BEFORE resulted in no source that could match GNG's "significant coverage" requirement. Furthermore, half of the article is unsourced and written non-neutrally. IceWelder &#91; &#9993; &#93; 10:44, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions.  IceWelder  &#91; &#9993; &#93; 10:44, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions.  IceWelder  &#91; &#9993; &#93; 10:44, 4 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep It is company listed on the London Stock Exchange; it is part of the FTSE 250 Index and has some 1,800 employees. See WP:LISTED. But I agree it could be improved and expanded. Dormskirk (talk) 10:58, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , the section reads:
 * (emphasis mine)
 * The company might be on the LSE, but there are no sources that could be found at a glance that provide independent analyses of the business, as opposed to the press release rehashes (WP:RUNOFTHEMILL/WP:NEWSORG) that are currently used in the article. Listed status and employee count alone do not make for notability. IceWelder  &#91; &#9993; &#93; 11:18, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Understood, but the fact that it is a significant company means that we should try all the harder to find some material which would be useful to the reader. I have added a bit and am working to find more. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 11:25, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I have trawled through some of the independent analysts' comments and although I have reflected some of the material, I have no wish to turn this article into an advert for the company. However, there was some criticism of signing up shareholders secretly, the high floatation costs and poor succession planning all which I have added. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 14:17, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Now that I have improved the article (there are now some 16 reliable sources) please can we get the nomination withdrawn? I don't believe there there is any need to emphasis in WP:LISTED but if there is, my emphasis would be as follows:
 * Thanks. Dormskirk (talk) 09:56, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your work. I cannot speak for the reliability of each source, but the sheer amount seems to satisfy a bare minimum for GNG. Withdrawing... IceWelder  &#91; &#9993; &#93; 10:17, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for dealing with this so professionally. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 10:27, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your work. I cannot speak for the reliability of each source, but the sheer amount seems to satisfy a bare minimum for GNG. Withdrawing... IceWelder  &#91; &#9993; &#93; 10:17, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for dealing with this so professionally. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 10:27, 5 September 2020 (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.