Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Technip Energies


 * 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 no consensus. Guerillero Parlez Moi 21:23, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Technip Energies

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

Fails WP:NCORP, specifically WP:SIRS.Chirota (talk) 08:48, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Chirota (talk) 08:48, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and France. Shellwood (talk) 08:49, 24 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Hi Chirota,
 * I believe this article is a worthy contribution to Wikipedia for the following reasons:
 * Technip Energies is a global player in the energy industry and therefore of note to the public. It just started work on what is the largest LNG project in history.
 * The company, based in France, already has an article published so this is a translation of existing content for an English audience.
 * As an editor, I made improvements to the objectivity of the source material and added further references. Please keep in mind industrial companies do not get usual news coverage or magazine features for their business activites, it's completely normal that some references are trade publications, that's just the nature of trying to cite (somewhat boring) industrial activity.
 * As always, open to any edits you think would improve this article.
 * With regards,
 * Andrew Andrewkess (talk) 14:15, 24 May 2022 (UTC)


 * In order to avoid confusion, a source analysis table is prepared as below:

The analysis suggests that the company doesn't pass criteria of WP:GNG- Chirota (talk) 00:13, 26 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the helpful source assesment table, Chirota.
 * As shared in my initial comment, the standard for significant news coverage in industrial activity is quite high since mainstream news organizations do not generally cover this subject matter for a general public. In addition, the company is only one year old so coverage isn't yet as established as other longer-standing companies in this sector. This does not necessarily mean however that the subject itself is unnoteworthy or unworthy of an article however as there are researchers, students and other audiences who would benefit from Wikipedia having an entry on the subject given it is a major player in the world of liquified natural gas. For example, the world economy is currently experiencing a major energy crisis as a result of the Russia/Ukraine conflict, and Technip Energies is one of the largest liquified natural gas actors with a stake in determing the outcome. To that end, I was able to secure 2 recent Reuters articles covering this subject directly:
 * https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/technip-energies-stops-working-future-business-opportunities-russia-2022-03-03/
 * https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/technip-energies-beats-core-profit-estimates-q1-2022-04-25/
 * I hope you will agree that these recent sources will satisfy the SIRS criteria. Thank you for your review.
 * With regards,
 * Andrew Andrewkess (talk) 14:12, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star   Mississippi  02:13, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. Nominator didn't check non-English newspaper sources for this French company WP:BEFORE nominating. There are many articles on this very large company in the French financial press. In any case, Reuters and the other sources in English are just about enough to meet WP:NCORP. Fiachra10003 (talk) 03:47, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Delete This is a company/organization therefore we look at WP:NCORP guidelines to apply, not just GNG.
 * Since the topic is a company/organization, we therefore require references that discuss the *company* in detail. As per WP:SIRS *each* reference must meet the criteria for establishing notability - the quantity of coverage is irrelevant so long as we find a minimum of two. WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content".
 * "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. This is usually the criteria where most references fail. References cannot rely only on information provided by the company, quotations, press releases, announcements, interviews fail ORGIND. Whatever is left over must also meet CORPDEPTH.
 * None of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability of the company, they are all either entirely based on company announcements with no Independent Content or they're repeating financial results with very little CORPDEPTH or they're standard business listings. Perhaps WP:TOOSOON. Topic therefore fails WP:NCORP.  HighKing++ 13:00, 4 June 2022 (UTC)


 * I've extended Chirota's source assessment table above to cover the citations that weren't in the article when Chirota referred it to AfD. Please see below:

Relisting comment: Can we reconcile this contrasting source tables, one of which says no GNG and one that says that GNG is established? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:29, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * This analysis is not right. lefigaro coverage are not independent of the subject. Also, It isn't clear how the reuters coverage appear independent to you where it says that the company stops operating in Russia which is based on company information only. Chirota (talk) 16:47, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * 1. Le Figaro is the oldest national daily in France and one of the three French newspapers of record, along with Le Monde and Libération. See the wikipedia article on the paper.


 * 2. It is editorially independent and doesn't have a discernable conflict of interest with respect to Technip Energies.


 * 3. The article is written by Guillaume Guichard, a regular, career, economics journalist with Le Figaro. His current beat is energy. See his LinkedIn record.  A newspaper of record such as Le Figaro can be taken as having policies in place requiring its reporters to avoid conflicts of interest with respect to organizations on which they may report.


 * 4. The article itself is not "produced by interested parties" - see WP:IND. In fact, the article is far from positive about the company: "Technip Energies voit un de ses très gros chantiers gelé (ou à tout le moins retardé), un potentiel futur contrat tomber à l’eau avec la guerre en Ukraine et les sanctions qui ont suivi, et un de ses principaux marchés se fermer. L’action du groupe a perdu près de 30 % depuis la mi-février. La Russie contribuait à hauteur de 15 % de son Ebit (résultat avant intérêt et taxes)." Roughly translated, "Technip Energies has seen one of its largest projects frozen (or at the very least delayed), a potential future contract falling through due to the war in Ukraine and the sanctions that followed, and one of its main markets closing. The group's share price has fallen nearly 30% since mid-February. Russia contributed 15% of its EBIT (earnings before interest and taxes)."  This is the opposite of what a company's public relations people might wish a reporter to write.


 * So I think we can take it that Le Figaro, the reporter, and the reporting are independent of the subject.


 * The Reuters piece is brief and reports on Technip Energies' earnings announcement, but it also reported on sell-side analysts' reaction to the Technip Energies' guidance as well as other companies such as Total, each of which are "attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject." - again, see WP:IND Fiachra10003 (talk) 15:09, 11 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep The Source assessment table: prepared by User:Fiachra10003 is quite convincing, this clearly passes the general notability guidelines.  D r e a m Focus  22:50, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep, article has been significantly improved since nomination, reflected in the difference between two source assessment tables. Sepherino (talk) 04:23, 13 June 2022 (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.