Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The KAZENERGY Eurasian Forum


 * 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. v/r - TP 02:55, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

The KAZENERGY Eurasian Forum

 * – ( View AfD View log )

A db-spam was removed without comment by an IP. I maintain that this article is irredeemably spammy: it is nothing but an advertisement for the forum. Note, for instance, the link that the IP removed--it's travel information. Note also the long list of announced speakers--that is nothing short of a directory of big names, intended to draw a crowd. Finally, note the number and type of external links. As for the topic itself: it is not notable. I wonder if the creator, who also brought you 6th KAZENERGY Eurasian Forum (also at AfD), isn't here to promote the Kazach energy industry. Drmies (talk) 17:48, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kazakhstan-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 18:08, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 18:09, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 9 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep – The topic's notability is established per several reliable sources already in the article, particularly the Tengri News article, a reliable objective news source with editorial integrity, the Rogtec Magazine article (which is NOT a copy and paste of a press release, it is an article in a magazine, although there may be content within the article that is also verbatim in other articles, but not all of it), which satisfy each of Wikipedia's General notability guidelines, including the existence of significant coverage of the topic, source reliability and editorial integrity, sources being secondary sources and sources being independent of the subject. Additionally, there are additional reliable sources in the article that verify the content within the article, specifically International Information Centre of the Republic of Kazakhstan, ITE Group, and others. Many of the rationales for deletion are based upon the nominator's opinion rather than checking for reliable sources, which is necessary to to perform prior to nomination in Articles for deletion. Please refer to WP:BEFORE, "Before nominating an article for deletion," particularly point B2, "If there are verifiability, notability or other sourcing concerns, take reasonable steps to search for reliable sources. (See "Sourcing search" below)" and D1, "Sourcing search", "The minimum search expected is a Google Books search and a Google News archive search; Google Scholar is suggested for academic subjects. Such searches should in most cases take only a minute or two to perform." Qualification for this article's deletion hasn't been established, because the nominator hasn't qualified deletion per Wikipedia guidelines (stated above), and the rationale for deletion is based upon opinion. The nominator didn't state anything about searching for reliable sources. Northamerica1000 (talk) 04:39, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Northamerica, the nominator (who has a name) has been around the block a few times--a few times more than you, I might add. I don't have to add "ooh, I couldn't find any reliable sources"--you'll just have to accept that I couldn't find any, so next time don't repeat all that crapola, citing BEFORE and all that--it's a waste of electrons. As for my opinion--how shall I put this delicately--don't be an ass. The same applies to you. For instance it is your opinion that this is a reliable source. I am not so convinced (and this is not positive either). And ask yourself, it if wasn't for 'legendary' Larry King, would that be written in the first place? King, who probably commands a hefty sum for showing up there? Then, that you claim that there are sources that verify content in the article--so what? We're discussing notability, not reliability. I have no doubt that there are sources that verify the content, and I have no doubt that those sources get that information from exactly the same place that our creator got it: the program. Have you not noticed that the article is a program? Have you not noticed that there is no secondary coverage that says anything about this forum, even something not interesting? But I've already wasted too many words here. One thing: stop telling me what to do. I know what to do, and unlike you, I can tell the difference between an encyclopedic article and an advertisement (or a piece of nonsense, like that Repellor vehicle). Drmies (talk) 20:16, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete As written, it is a complete spam and advertisement piece. Refs point to the 6th version of the forum which is up for AfD and leaning delete or the refs have nothing todo with the forum.  Bgwhite (talk) 07:37, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Agreed unless the article can provide Wikiworthy WP:N. All the peacockery and puffiness and advertising about upcoming event(s) need to go. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 11:46, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment – The article has been significantly expanded with additional reliable sources that verify content within the article expansions, and in other areas of the article. New reliable sources include The Wall Street Journal, The St. Petersburg Times, and many others. The article's topic is notable and worthy of having a standalone article. Northamerica1000 (talk) 09:19, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * You actually expanded on that puff piece? Why? Well, this is not making that subject any more notable (which is obvious to anyone) than it is. That article and this say that some dude is the head of the Kazenergy association--so what? Drmies (talk) 20:21, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment – Per Drmies's message directly above this message, the link he referred to verifies information within the article, specifically, that Timur Kulibayev is indeed the present Chairman of the Association. This serves to increase the credibility of the article's content. Northamerica1000 (talk) 20:56, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Wall Street Journal and St. Petersburg Times pieces never mention the Forum. How in the world does that do anything to establish notability or anything that was said in article?  There are already several refs that refer to Kulibayev being the head of the Association.  Adding more refs to things not related to the article is just adding fluff. Bgwhite (talk) 22:33, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment – The Wall Street Journal article discusses the Kazenergy Association, whom founded The KAZENERGY Eurasian Forum, which serves verify information in the article. Verifiability is important to substantiate facts in Wikipedia articles. The St. Petersburg Times article also verifies information in the article. Rather than a blanket deletion of this article, why not contribute to the article? Refer to WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM for some useful information. The article covers significant topics regarding contemporary global energy matters. Northamerica1000 (talk) 00:42, 12 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - Lacks significant coverage in independent reliable sources to establish notability. Re-hashed press releases do not establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 13:56, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment – I added more reliable sources to this article, which further qualifies the article's inclusion on Wikipedia. New reliable sources include: The Kyiv Post and the Kazakhstan Today news agency. These are reliable sources that substantiate the topic's notability, and also verify information in the article. There are many more reliable sources available from this Google news archive search here. Please refer to these links when considering the topic's notability. Thank you. Northamerica1000 (talk) 07:15, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Update – In addition to the above, many new reliable sources from news sources were added to the article as inline citations. These sources establish this topic as notable per Wikipedia General notability guidelines. Northamerica1000 (talk) 08:11, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment – Check out this exceptional news article from Euronews - "Kazakhstan: the new energy frontier." The article's topic is obviously notable per this and many, many other sources available. Northamerica1000 (talk) 08:29, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Which, rather unexceptionally, mentions that the prime minister spoke at the conference. And says nothing about it. Drmies (talk) 05:11, 15 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment – In light of the significant addition of reliable sources to the KAZENERGY Eurasian Forum article that qualifies notability of this topic, and the availability of additional reliable sources that establish stated notability, I propose that this AfD discussion be relisted to generate a more thorough discussion. Thank you. Northamerica1000 (talk) 13:08, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. No significant coverage of the topic in reliable independent sources. Information agencies promoting the country, mentions of notable people attending conferences, recycled press releases, quasi-advertising, etc. do not establish notability. Bongo  matic  02:45, 14 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment - Did you actually check all of the references in the article and for the availability of reliable sources, or are you stating that there is absolutely "no" coverage whatsoever on the planet that constitutes reliable sources to qualify the nobability of this topic? I disagree with the assessment above by user Bongomatic. For an objective assessment, please refer to the following reliable sources, which are NOT recycled press releases, quasi-advertising, promotional, etc. as stated in the above message by user Bongomatic. Furthermore, of course the sources mention notable world leaders, former world leaders, heads of multinational corporations, etc. whom have attended the forums and what they stated at them; why wouldn't they? This is part of objective news reporting: reporting notable facts. Please refer to the following:, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . I also think you're making a false correlation regarding the topic of press releases and the topic of reliable sources. Under your apparent rationale, press releases are being "recycled", which is untrue in these sources listed above. Under the rationale you've mentioned, it appears that your opinion is that if any information in news sources is also present in press releases, then the reliability of the news source is somehow immediately reduced or dismissible, under a blanket, generic rationale that the information is "recycled," which is false. Under this rationale, anything reported in the press that is also mentioned in a press report or press release somehow nullifies the reliability of the news source, which is illogical. In other words, per your rationale, if similar data is present in two mediums, then source reliability is somehow lessened, which again, is illogical and untrue. There are no verbatim copies of press releases in any of the sources listed above, period. Northamerica1000 (talk) 03:14, 15 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment - User Bongomatic above refers to some of the sources I've researched and provided as "information agencies", which is incorrect. Some of the reliable sources are from "News Agencies". Per Merriam-Webster, the definition of news agency is: ": an organization that supplies news to subscribing newspapers, periodicals, and newscasters." For example, the Associated Press is a news agency. Northamerica1000 (talk) 04:03, 15 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment - Another reliable source found that further qualifies topic notability, also added as an inline citation in the article: (October 4, 2009.) "Kazakhstan may pump crude to Europe through Azerbaijan." New Europe, Brussels News Agency. Northamerica1000 (talk) 03:37, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Reply. The sources cited in the comment above are addressed in order:
 * Euronews: mention of comments made, and description of quoted individual as chairman.
 * Tengri: coverage relating to Larry King, coverage of subject for context.
 * Al Bawaba: coverage relating to Cheney, passing mention of subject.
 * Investkz.com: coverage in magazine promoting Kazakhstan business, not independent (possibly government-sponsored&mdash;by the way by "information agency" I meant agency of the government or industry promoting a government or industry agenda, not an independent source intended to be balanced).
 * Kazakh embassy: government organ.
 * KyivPost: passing mention relating to Schroeder.
 * Kommersant: passing mention.
 * Trend: passing mention in context of reporting on comments of one participant.
 * Trend: explicit rehash of press release.
 * Kazpravda.kz: appears local, non-independent, and possibly opinion rather than news piece. Source unlikely to be judged capable of demonstrating notability.
 * WSJ: mention only in the context of describing quoted individual's role.
 * Tengri: mention only in the context of describing quoted individual's role.
 * Khabar Television: regional coverage of (then) current event not establishing notability.
 * PR Newswire: press release.
 * Kazakhstan Today: local promotional coverage of current event.
 * Regnum: Repost from other news agencies. Bongo  matic  05:03, 15 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment - With all due respect, the reply above by user Bongomatic appears to be subjective assessments made to qualify a predetermined opinion to delete the article "no matter what", rather than an objective assessment regarding the topic's notability. For example, as stated above, "Trend: explicit rehash of press release.", per the order presented above refers to: "Second Eurasian Energy Forum KazEnergy to be Held in Astana." The news article is from a news agency, and only a minute portion of the article quotes from a press release, which is directly stated in the article, per the following (verbatim) from the article:


 * "The goal of the forum is to discuss actual issues on the development of oil and energy, survey of analytical information, development of proposals and recommendations, co-ordination of general approach to create efficient legislative mechanisms and practice instruments of functioning in the economy,” stated a press-release distributed by the company."


 * The rest of the article is not a duplicate or rehash of a press release whatsoever. Perhaps user Bongomatic could provide a copy of the press release from the second forum as a comparison. As stated, Bongomatic's assessment is based upon opinion, rather than facts.


 * Additionally, some of these articles are short articles, and mentions of the KaZenergy Eurasian Forum will naturally be lessened in short articles. It's unnecessary to state the name of the forum repeatedly in short articles.


 * Another example, as quoted above by user Bongomatic, "PR Newswire: press release." is absolutely false. Here's the link "Kazakh PM Invites Eni and EU Commissioner for Talks on Kashagan.", and here's the text:


 * "ASTANA, Kazakhstan, September 6 /PRNewswire/ -- In his opening address to the KazEnergy forum in Astana today, Kazakh Prime Minister Karim Massimov invited Eni CEO, Paolo Scaroni, to visit Kazakhstan to discuss issues related to the Kashagan oil field at his earliest convenience.


 * The Prime Minister also invited Energy Commissioner Andris Piebalgs - who warned last Friday that the EU could act if companies' rights are threatened - for talks. Mr Massimov..."


 * This is an excerpt from a business article, and is NOT a press release. Again, I suggest that user Bongomatic provides a press release for comparison to qualify this statement. Without a valid comparison, the statement provided by user Bongomatic is again, opinion, and unsubstantiated by facts.
 * I'm sorry, but which part of "PRNewswire" is unclear to you? Have you even looked at the article for that outfit, PR Newswire? Perhaps the sentence "Today, PR Newswire is hired by corporations, public relations firms and non-governmental organizations to deliver news and multimedia content" provides a modicum of insight. Drmies (talk) 06:02, 15 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment - The above-quoted data from user Drmies is from unreferenced information in the PR Newswire Wikipedia article. Rather, please refer to the "about us" section of the publication that published the data, here, "Goliath is The Gale Group, Inc.'s online-business content service, providing global company and industry intelligence to business executives. Goliath provides immediate online access to more than three million records including business articles, industry reports, company profiles and executive contacts pulled from business data resources maintained by The Gale Group, Inc. The site serves a range of business needs - from starting a company, to researching an existing company and reviewing best practices, to retrieving recent business news." Thank you. Northamerica1000 (talk) 09:45, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Haha, yes, that is what the quote means. Do you read the National Enquirer? Drmies (talk) 22:13, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Hopefully a more objective assessment of the topic's notability will be undertaken by others. As the assessment above by user Bongomatic exists, it is quite ambiguous and open to multiple interpretations, in part due to the simplistic nature of the statements. With all due respect, it's also counterproductive to spend significant amounts of time disqualifying short, simple, ambiguous and false statements such as those above that have been refuted here. Again, it appears that the reliable sources are being viewed inobjectively to qualify a predetermined stance to delete the article "no matter what", rather than upon the topic's notability. Northamerica1000 (talk) 05:50, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - With all due respect, the arguments from user Bongomatic in the reply above may be misleading to other readers of this AfD. Please be sure to read the article's yourselves, rather than rely upon the summary provided by user Bongomatic. Thank you. Northamerica1000 (talk) 06:00, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Hidden in the jungle of verbosity, above, is a set of really swell personal attacks on the integrity and good faith of Bongomatic. "With all due respect" is, with all due respect, BS--your predetermined stance seems to be that every single mention in every possible news release and on every possible website is proof of a subject's notability. Bongo's short but to-the-point statements nicely contrast your not so short and woefully-straying-from-policy claims. Drmies (talk) 06:04, 15 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment - I disagree with the above criticism from user Drmies. AfD is about a topic's notability. User Drmies isn't addressing the sources I provided, and isn't taking the time to be specific about them. This person is just agreeing with another user's statements without qualifying the rationale of the other user's statements, instead providing a summary of how they "contrast." Also, rather, than addressing the sources, the comment is based upon ad hominen argument, making statements about a person who made a statement rather than addressing the statement itself. The statements above are also assumptive. I haven't stated that every possible website is proof of anything, let alone a subject's notability. This isn't my belief. Nobody has the right to state what another person's beliefs are in this manner. It's inappropriate, and baseless. Again, please read the articles, and judge them based upon their merits, rather than engaging in ad hominen arguments, which are logical fallacies. The above statement does nothing to provide rationale to either qualify or disqualify the topic's notability, which is the purpose of AfD. Thank you for your consideration. Northamerica1000 (talk) 09:32, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I thought you were the one who was referring to Bongo's edits as too short and misleading, as opinionated and biased. FYI, less is more, Northamerica1000. But I'm not going to waste any more time addressing this verbiage. Drmies (talk) 13:57, 15 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete I added a Times Online article reference to the article which talks about KazEnergy but not the KAZENERGY Eurasian Forum. I'm seeing a lot of PR hype here but no independent meat. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:49, 15 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment - Many sources in the article, and available sources, refer directly to the The KAZENERGY Eurasian Forum, which serves to qualify notability of the topic. The news articles referenced in the article are from reliable news sources with a reputation of integrity, and are independent of the topic. Can you be more specific? What does "independent meat" mean? Are you referring to the article or the references? What do you mean by "PR hype"? Does this mean that any information that is reported in mass media is invalid if similar information is in a press report? If you're referring to public relations, how does the content and prose within the article qualify a pronouncement of being the one-word description of "hype?" Are you reading the entire article, and the manner in which the information and references in the article supports the premise of the article? Sometimes sources are used to verify information within an article. Have you researched any other sources that may be available? In the age of infotainment, U.S. mass media often ignores topics such as these, because they are less popular, which brings in less viewers and readers, which equates to less advertising profits. Northamerica1000 (talk) 10:31, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Delete I am not seeing much development. What I see is expansion upon puffery with list of chronological event and trying to establish notability of other things that do not make this organization more notable. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 18:55, 15 September 2011 (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.