Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Surbana International Consultants Pte Ltd


 * 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 redirect to Surbana Jurong. (non-admin closure) SST  flyer  02:37, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Surbana International Consultants Pte Ltd

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Clear-cut promotional page whose only "reliable" source is its own website. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 01:58, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:50, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:50, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

*Delete -- pls see Talk:Surbana_International_Consultants_Pte_Ltd. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:14, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 * TNT Delete Updated - This is a good place to apply WP:TNT. The entire article has been edited by undisclosed paid editors. I have finally managed to discuss COI with one of them and they are now working on a better updated article here Draft:Surbana Jurong Private Limited. I have asked them to go through AFC. This article meanwhile can be safely deleted. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:19, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep and clean up. This is a very notable company with thousands of employees and major international projects—not some 2-year-old startup with 50 people working for it. Observe for example, these books by academic publishers, , plus coverage in Google news . It's crazy to delete this article and then replace it with Draft:Surbana Jurong Private Limited, thus losing all the article's history and potentially valuable information for re-expanding it. The editor working on the draft can just as easily make these changes to the article in situ. The rationale that it doesn't pass notability fails competely, and so does the  TNT rationale. The problem is not remotely beyond fixing, and deleting the article until the draft is complete (if ever) means the encyclopedia has zero information about a prominent company. As much as I deplore paid editing, it is not a blanket reason to delete articles. This is truly using a sledgehammer to crack a nut. Voceditenore (talk) 17:11, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Update I have reduced the article to a short but viable stub with four quality references from independent sources, three of them books. Many of its other projects are also very notable with multiple coverage. They can be re-added to expand the article with independent sourcing from the material in the history. I have also updated the company information. There is now no valid reason whatsoever for deleting this. When this article is kept, it will have to be moved to a new title (I don't want to move it during the AfD) and it needs a new company logo. TheGracefulSlick, Lemongirl942, and K.e.coffman, please return and look at the current state of the article. And... I would highly recommend you all do this in future before making and !voting in nominations like this. Voceditenore (talk) 18:35, 28 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep as "Surbana Jurong" since the two companies merged recently BizTimes and the article has been improved to the state that it can stay and be expanded from there. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:27, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment I didn't doubt the notability of the company at all here (I'm from Singapore myself and company has been in news multiple times), only that the article is in a bad state. Throughout the entire history of the article it has been exclusively edited by paid editors and the content is badly promotional. The company has now merged with another company (JIH) to form Draft:Surbana Jurong Private Limited which is also being edited by another editor to whom I explained the paid editing procedure. Instead of volunteer editors spending time to fix Surbana International Consultants Pte Ltd, I very much prefer if the paid editors do a good job themselves and volunteer editors have to do as less as possible. This is beneficial in the long term. (See WP:BOGOF for more about this) The draft Draft:Surbana Jurong Private Limited has much more information about the present company (merger and history) and I would prefer if this is the version kept going forward. Since Voceditenore has now added some references to the article, I propose
 * Move Draft:Surbana Jurong Private Limited to mainspace at Surbana Jurong
 * Merge references and any usable content from Surbana International Consultants Pte Ltd to Surbana Jurong
 * Redirect Surbana International Consultants Pte Ltd to Surbana Jurong
 * This merges the references to the new article, preserves the history and we still have an article about a notable company. Ping and  as well --Lemongirl942 (talk) 01:58, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
 * This would also work. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:31, 29 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Lemongirl942, the nominator used lack of 3rd-party references and promotionalism as the rationale for deletion, when both of those could be easily fixed as I demonstrated. You !voted to completely delete this article using the rationale in the essay WP:TNT. The article is no longer qualifies for that rationale in its current state. I have demonstrated that it is not "hopelessly irreparable" at all and that the subject is highly notable. Your approach seems to be "punish" the COI editors per some of the opinions expressed as WP:BOGOF which at the moment proposes two contrasting viewpoints on the issue and states quite explicitly that the essay is still in development. However, by removing any information whatsoever about this company from the encyclopedia, no matter how accurate and well-referenced it is, until the COI editor produces an adequate replacement, you are simply punishing the reader. There is no coherent reason to delete this article before the COI editor produces a new one under the new name, and frankly, there's a long way to go. It has zero inline citations to support the statements about the company's history and only two external links listed as references. Even worse, the draft was very closely paraphrased and in places copied verbatim from the timeline at the bottom of https://surbanajurong.com/about-us. I have now removed the copypasted material from it. There is no way it can be moved into main space during the running of this AfD. I have no intention of working on it apart from removing copyright violations. If and when an adequate "new" article is eventually produced, the current page can simply be turned into a redirect. A merge requires the original article be kept to preserve attribution. Are you seriously proposing to move the currently completely inadequate draft into main space before this AfD closes? If not, are you still arguing to completely delete this article, which is now fully compliant with WP policies, at this AfD even though there is no suitable replacement? Voceditenore (talk) 07:24, 29 July 2016 (UTC) Updated by Voceditenore (talk) 07:48, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I see I hadn't struck my !vote - although I thought my comment about merging made it clear that there is no way the page should be deleted. I also didn't notice that you have actually changed the main subject of the article - from "Surbana International Consultants" to "Surbana Jurong". These are 2 different entities although the former merged into the latter. I have reverted this as this is something which should be changed only after the AfD (my merging assumptions were based on the former).
 * The draft is pretty bad yes and I hadn't examined it thoroughly. We can keep this article now but eventually I still think it should be merged to Surbana Jurong. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:51, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The solution is simple. Once the AfD closes, the current article should be moved to Surbana Jurong with my wording of the lead restored, and the old logo replaced. That's what I'm going to do. There is no pressing need to expand it any further once my wording is restored. Given their complete lack of understanding of how WP works demonstrated today, I'll eat my hat if the COI editor ever produces an acceptable draft. It's a waste of time not only for them, but also for the AfC reviewers. Voceditenore (talk) 16:04, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Umm, I want to specifically avoid the changing of the article scope. The problem is that companies split and merge all the time and we merge and split accordingly. But it is much cleaner if the history of a particular subject stays under that title. Hmm, I think I might have a solution. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:53, 29 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Surbana Jurong I have already merged the content (diff) to Surbana Jurong (and this company itself merged to Surbana Jurong in real life). Nothing else left to do now. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 01:01, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:32, 3 August 2016 (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.