Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Isola (Company)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. – bradv🍁 01:48, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Isola (Company)

[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Isola (Company) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails NCORP. no substantial coverage DGG ( talk ) 04:13, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:24, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:24, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:13, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails NCORP lacks independent coverage by independent sources. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 23:30, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Given the age of the company, it's likely that there are enough independent Norwegian language articles about its corporate activities in the Norwegian business press to provide the necessary notability, so I think we'd be better to let the article be improved over time. I imagine that sooner or later a Norwegian speaker will do the necessary digging to bring this article up to scratch. RomanSpa (talk) 23:34, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry to say, but - speculation about sources that might exist does not demonstrate notability. Based on the above RomanSpa comment, perhaps this article is WP:TOOSOON. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 01:41, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I checked the sources on the Norwegian version of this article. They do not support notability for this topic at this time on the English Wiikipedia. Sorry. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 01:45, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi CaliViking, the appropriate guideline is WP:NCORP and you've mentioned a lot of things above which I will comment on in the context of the guidelines. Be aware that of course you have a !vote and it makes no difference if you created the article or not. Also be aware that there are two types of reference - ones that support a fact within the article (must meet WP:RS) and ones that help to establish notability (must meet NCORP).
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. That means, nothing that relies on company information or announcements or interviews, etc.
So, you've said above that "there is not a lot of public information beyond the products". Since the article is about the company, not the products, this isn't a good sign that we'll find "multiple references" that meet NCORP. You've also said "there is significant company coverage in Norwegian", which is great, but then you go on to say "as all Norwegian companies must make their financials public", which is bad. A company's financial information is not "Independent Content" since it was produced by the company, so that type of reference can be used to support facts and figures within the article but doesn't assist in establishing notability. By all means if there are Norwegian language articles which meet NCORP requirements, please post the links here, but please don't post links to articles that rely on company financials, company announcements (including articles that "reword" the announcements but are still entirely based on the announcement), financial results, product reviews (the topic is the company, not a product), etc as these do not assist in establishing notability. HighKing++ 10:25, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ORGIND says nothing about interviews, and interviews of company representatives by independent journalists are perfectly acceptable. In fact, interviews of company representatives by independent journalists are exactly the type of coverage we're looking for because that's how journalism works.St★lwart111 06:38, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 04:55, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:HEY. Ask and ye shall receive. CaliViking and Eastmain have both added and refined references in a range of languages. They include a couple of references I found, and a fair few I didn't. There are some behind paywalls (especially the Varden ones) and while that doesn't invalidate them as sources, it does make it challenging for editors to review them. St★lwart111 05:48, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
While I agree that some editors have provided links, I don't see any that meet NCORP requirements. Can you point to WP:THREE that do? HighKing++ 18:03, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi CaliViking and Stalwart111, the search link added is not a reference to an article, but a reference to a search for the company name. That does not meet any of our requirements as we need links to articles (hence the request to post links to any THREE articles). Be aware especially that WP:ORGIND requires "Independent Content" in order to count towards establishing notability, and although I've posted the definition above, I'll repeat it again - original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. So nothing that relies on company announcements (including financial results which is regarded as trivial routine coverage - see NCORP).
  • Audited Accounts: The fact that a company's accounts are audited (independently verified) and centrally filed makes no difference - most every company can chose to file audited accounts in every country in the world and in some countries it is mandatory to file audited accounts but that does not make those companies notable nor are those filings regarded as meeting the criteria for establishing notability. So the gap which still exists is "Independent Content".
  • References: You say that you "believe" that the Varden newspaper articles fulfill the requirement for "general notability" (I assume you mean WP:GNG which is not the appropriate guideline, it should be WP:NCORP) and "significant coverage" but it plainly isn't "Independent Content" as it is based on an announcement/interview with "connected people" with no independent opinion/investigation/analysis/etc *about the company* (and not the product). The next article linked in the search results returns one from Finansavisen which merely mentions the company name, no in-depth information. The next link is from "Teknisk Ukeblad" which also relies entirely on information and data provided by the company and is mostly about the product (solar panel) that the company. I'm not going to go through all the links - any ones I've checked fail the criteria for establishing notability and mostly because they either don't have "Independent Content" or don't talk about the company but about the product.
  • WP:CORPDEPTH *and* WP:ORGIND are required in each reference: Getting a company's product profiled in a well-known prestigious reliable publication does not meet our requirements if the article simply regurgitates company-produced information and data without any "Independent Content" *about the company*. Similarly, a brief opinion/fact check/analysis that meets "Independent Content" but fails to provide sufficient in-depth information on the company also fails our requirements. This is a deliberate high standard for companies/organization for a variety of reasons.
Some examples of good references include analyst reports - perhaps the company is recognized as leader/innovator/notable in a particular field and has featured in an analyst report? Or perhaps a journalist was impressed with the longevity of the company and wrote an article on its history and included sufficient "Independent Content"? Or perhaps a journalist/author was impressed with the company growth or revenues and wrote an article containing sufficient "Independent Content" rather than reacting/writing an article because the company made an announcement? HighKing++ 16:12, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have you been through the references that have now been included in the article? Many of them are exactly what you're asking for. They are more than enough for me to believe the subject easily meets our WP:GNG, let alone subject-specific criteria (which do not supersede GNG anyway), so you're unlikely to sway me with vague appeals to guidelines. Instead of pointing to policy that most of us are familiar with, would you like to address some of the specific references now included and tell us why you believe that (combined) they don't rise to the level of our GNG? St★lwart111 04:07, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response And so we get to the point in the AfD where variations of "Have you looked hard enough at the references, you must be mistaken because I think and am sure they're OK." Or "I don't like NCORP because it's too strict and makes it impossible to find references". Or "I much prefer GNG and I'm sure the references meet GNG" Or "I don't care what you say, I'm entitled to my own opinion and I'm not going to change my mind no matter what". Fine. I'm sure that like me, the closing admin has seen this many times before. But nevertheless I will try to answer your questions.
  • Yes, I've looked not only at the references in the article but I've also searched online for other references and while I think a good case can be made for an article on the founder, Harald Thiis-Evensen who was awarded the Kongens_fortjenstmedalje - a Norwegian award of Merit - in 1988, and while reference 4 provides some information on the company, we need multiple references and to date it is fair to say that nothing has been found. This isn't surprising. For most of this company's life, it was a building materials company but remained private, never listing on any stock exchange, but most recently has launched (with great fanfare) their range of solar powered roofing products. Just about every reference is in relation to their solar powered products as you may have noticed. The article as it stand is WP:REFBOMBed - you don't need 18 references to support the fact that the company sells products in Sweden, Denmark, UK and Germany.
  • You say that that a subject-specific guideline doesn't supercede GNG. The GNG and the SNG are both guidelines with the same "weight", one doesn't explicitly overrule the other, although it is a general rule of thumb that the SNGs provide more explicit guidelines and should be given more attention. This is reflected in the WP:SNG section of GNG itself. Note the last sentence in particular: SNGs also serve additional and varying purposes depending on the topic. Some SNGs, for example the ones in the topic areas of films, biographies, and politicians, provide guidance when topics should not be created. SNGs can also provide examples of sources and types of coverage considered significant for the purposes of determining notability, such as the treatment of book reviews for our literature guidelines and the strict significant coverage requirements spelled out in the SNG for organizations and companies.
  • Finally, you request specifically why the references (combined) don't rise to the level of GNG. That is because we don't combine references when establishing notability and this is made clear in NCORP which says An individual source must meet all of these criteria to be counted towards establishing notability.
I don't intend to continue to respond in circumstances where no new references are being produced. Clearly you have a different interpretation on the criteria for notability of companies, preferring GNG to NCORP, and I'm satisfied we both understand each other's position. HighKing++ 11:24, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't prefer one over the other and haven't (above or anywhere else) expressed a preference for one or the other. Nor a dislike for one or the other. I'm simply of the view that if a subject meets one, it is not also required to meet the other. And I remain of the view that the references provided are enough for the subject to meet WP:GNG. Notability is necessarily reflective of combined sources, because we require multiple reliable sources; one isn't enough and only by a combination of those multiple sources can we assess notability. Of course they must individually be independent, reliable sources, but combining them is what we do. St★lwart111 02:44, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And that's fine and thank you for clarifying your position. But I will point out that our guidelines don't agree with your opinion. The WP:SNG section of GNG explicitly points us to the NCORP guideline for establishing notability. NCORP explicitly points out that *each* source must be the guidelines and that multiple sources (where *each* meets the guidelines) is required. Combining is *not* what we do - at least when it comes to NCORP. And that "independent" doesn't mean only the interpretation of "publisher and topic company are different companies, not a primary source" but must also include "independent content". HighKing++ 14:11, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, I think you've misunderstood what I'm saying. Of course, each source must be independent, reliable, and constitute significant coverage on its own. But a single source isn't sufficient to confer notability, so we rely on multiple sources (and a combination of those multiple sources) to confer notability. That an otherwise reliable source has published positive coverage of a company does not make it unreliable, or no longer independent. If we included only critical significant coverage, we would barely have an encyclopedia. St★lwart111 00:13, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK, perhaps, and I'm still not sure - it is your use of "combination" which is confusing. WP:SIRS says "An individual source must meet all of these criteria to be counted towards establishing notability; each source needs to be significant, independent, reliable, and secondary. In addition, there must also be multiple such sources to establish notability. If the suitability of a source is in doubt, it is better to exercise caution and exclude the source for the purposes of establishing notability." You agree with that so we're on the same page so far. But. We don't rely on "a combination" of sources to confer notability, we only require "multiple" sources. Don't want to put words in your mouth but perhaps you are looking at all references/sources in an article and believe they must all of the standard to establish notability? We're not saying that *only* sources that meet NCORP can be referenced in an article, we're not saying we can only reference "critical significant coverage" in an article. Of course you can have lots of references and to be clear, we only need a minimum of two sources that meet NCORP - the rest have nothing to do with establishing notability but may be important for supporting various facts or information. We're still trying to identify two sources that meet NCORP. HighKing++ 16:17, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think my using synonyms will make it any clearer for you, so I will leave it at this: the multiple reliable sources cited by other editors are sufficient for me to believe this meets the threshold of notability. Misinterpretations of guidelines are unconvincing. St★lwart111 06:38, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I removed all the links to resellers and distributors as it is perceived as having negative value and being WP:REFBOMBING, the intent was to provide a reference, not to provide noise - sorry for the confusion.
  • I disagree that articles in Teknisk Ukeblad relies entirely on information and data provided by the company: Teknisk Ukeblad is an established and independent publication with journalistic integrity. The article is referencing Institute for Energy Technology and SINTEF which are both internationally renown research institutes, it is hard to find more reliable sources in Norway.
  • As the company is not public, it is uncommon to have financial analysts covering the company. There is however significant information from analysts in trade related magazines that cover the building material companies and their businesses. Take a look at https://www.bygg.no/search/?q=isola&sort=date&date=0 - I can provide links to articles about changes to the organization, new chairman of the board, the impact of raw material pricing during Covid, that the company had record revenue in 2020, that the CEO of Isola was the chairman of the building material industry organization in Norway and has recently stepped down, that the company has invested in environmental documentation, there are more than 100 articles written about the company (I know that the number does not matter, but there is a lot of content), its products, and its business. Please let me know if you would consider any of these articles as valid material and I will be happy to add them (just want to make sure that I am not WP:REFBOMBING).
  • Regarding the audited financials; I have no problem with this information not being a factor of consideration. The information was provided to show some insight into the process to create financial transparency in Norway and to provide information about the company size, please feel free to ignore it. I assume that it cannot be negative that this information exists.
  • Please take a look at https://web.archive.org/web/20140222064631/http://www.polytekniske.no/Pionerer/Pionerer.pdf - this is a book published by "Skiensfjordens Polytekniske Forening" which is local chapter of Polytechnic Society (Norway) - the book covers the 100 year history of business development in the Grenland region. Three pages 82-84 covers Isola and its business with specific reference to its 60 year longevity and how the company was started from virtually nothing.
  • I added a reference to Isola's investments in the door and windows production in Røros
  • There is now only one reference to the company website (corporate structure), all other references are external. I'll be happy to remove that one reference if it makes the article better.
  • I am here to make WP articles better, please let me know how I can help
  • CaliViking (talk)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 13:12, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I notice that HighKing has gone over all of the above with advice on how to determine what are acceptable sources. The most recent post is essentially a regurgitation of the same type of sources. For one thing, they are routine information about the company or its products, and is considered trivial coverage.
There are lists and descriptions of trivial coverage at WP:ORGDEPTH if anyone cares to look. Also, links provided such as this [1] amount to company announcements (not independent coverage) and are more routine information. For example, new salesman, new executives, building space, revenue record and so on. And without significant independent coverage this also contravenes WP:GNG and NCORP. Also, Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion of this company.
Lastly, Calviking previously acknowledged the lack of significant information available on this company in. I think continuing to post unusable references in the article and at this AFD is beginning to amount to bludgeoning and is a waste of everybody's time. In other words, I know I don't have time to characterize or explain every specific source.
As HighKing noted above, the best way to learn about acceptable sources is to read the notability criteria on the appropriate pages. Thanks very much. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 20:15, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am still working on improving the article and added one more reference that meets WP:NCORP. The article[1] in Finansavisen meets significant coverage (the primary topic in the article is Isola and the limited profitability over 10 years), is independent (There is no relationship between Finansavisen or the author of the news article and Isola. The article covers investigation and analysis done by the author which leads to the authors published opinion that "there are only profit crumbs left from roofing" - translated from "Tjener smuler på tette tak"), it is from a reliable source (Finansavisen is a mainstream newspaper, and the article is written by Anders Horntvedt who is one of their journalists), and it is a secondary source (it provides the author's own analysis, evaluation, and interpretation of the input from the primary source). CaliViking (talk) 18:42, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:HEY, thanks to improvements made since the deletion nomination by Eastmain and CaliViking. NemesisAT (talk) 21:39, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The main thrust of the Delete !voters are that none of the references meet NCORP. Your !vote mentions "improvements" since deletion but can you point to any reference that meets NCORP? HighKing++ 14:20, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
User:HighKing - There are at least two: The article in Finansavisen listed above (my comment on 18:42, 22 August 2021 (UTC)) and https://web.archive.org/web/20140222064631/http://www.polytekniske.no/Pionerer/Pionerer.pdf - both fulfill WP:NCORP. CaliViking (talk) 06:04, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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.
  1. ^ https://finansavisen.no/nyheter/industri/2021/04/22/7659671/bjornar-gulliksen-og-ketil-johansen-i-isola-har-gjennomsnittlig-lonnsomhet-pa-1-6-prosent
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Isola_(Company)&oldid=1042262024"