Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bosphorus Development

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. I find the arguments of those arguing for Delete more persuasive, along with the source tables. Those advocating Keep have to present sources to back their view that sources exist. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:19, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bosphorus Development (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Promotional article for a company that fails WP:NCORP. All sources are WP:ORGTRIV (routine coverage of market entries, financing, awards, etc.), WP:PRIMARYSOURCES (interviews, self-published materials), or otherwise unreliable sources. WP:BEFORE search turned up nothing validating notability. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:53, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Turkey. Shellwood (talk) 15:09, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom ~Politicdude (About me, talk, contribs) 18:25, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as the minimal sources for establishing notablity are present and company is operating in two countries and is behind the biggest buildings in Turkey (Istanbul Tower 205, Istanbul aquarium) etc.--RodrigoIPacce (talk) 10:05, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Obviously we don't agree about the availability of WP:SIGCOV in WP:SIRS -- can you share your WP:THREE best sources for other editors to evaluate? (Notability is not WP:INHERITED from buildings this company may have been involved with.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 12:45, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep lean towards keep per WP NEXIST (Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article). The company had various names throughout its history, and it was mentioned in Turkish newspapers with no digital copies. I will try to add what I can find. 78.177.93.54 (talk) 08:15, 17 July 2024 (UTC) — 78.177.93.54 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  Mentions of the company are not sufficient, WP:NCORP mandates significant coverage. Janhrach (talk) 09:32, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 17:18, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Per points above. The article was created by a blocked sock, and other substantial edits were mostly done by IPs. Aintabli (talk) 08:55, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep added not digital good sourcing from Turkish media. It’s quite large construction company (having built Istanbul Tower 205). It seems to meet notability criteria. Dirubii Olchoglu (talk) 08:17, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Dirubii Olchoglu: The ConstructionNews URL you added to the article is dead and has never been archived by Wayback Machine, and constructionnews.com does not even seem like a website publishing articles. The book (curiously written by "J. Doe") doesn't seem to exist under this title, and the ISBN belongs to an edition of The Logic of Scientific Discovery. Could you clarify this situation? Janhrach (talk) 11:17, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Dirubii Olchoglu Even if the Construction News article was accessible to us, it wouldn't count toward notability as a WP:TRADES publication. Regardless of its size or the projects it worked on, the company needs to demonstrate WP:SIGCOV in WP:SIRS; notability isn't WP:INHERITED from projects it was involved in. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:56, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep the sources are kind of/minimum sufficient. The 100 years company is highly likely notable and has sources per NEXIST. It also should be rewritten to avoid any promo. --Loewstisch (talk) 10:57, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Keep !votes have asserted that minimal sources are present, but none have presented the sources they say meet the criteria. I have conducted the following source analysis and I do not see a single source that solidly passes the bar of WP:SIGCOV in WP:SIRS per WP:ORGCRIT. If there are more sources out there (and I didn't find any), "keep" !voters need to present them, not just assert they exist. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:15, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To see if there is any editor response to the source analysis presented.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:12, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "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. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. Also, the "Business Ukraine" article marked as "partial" in the source assess table relies entirely on an interview with the founder with no in-depth Independent Content. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:37, 29 July 2024 (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.