Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Century Financial Consultancy
- 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 and salted. Daniel (talk) 03:16, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Century Financial Consultancy (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)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. —S Marshall T/C 18:44, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance and United Arab Emirates. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:04, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
- Delete: In addition to the content of both versions being WP:PROMOTIONAL in nature, the only sources with nontrivial coverage, Gulf News and Khaleej Times, offer branded/partner content services, and aren't suitable for establishing facts and notability: https://www.khaleejtimes.com/advertise, http://reachbygn.com/. PaulT2022 (talk) 05:13, 30 December 2023
- Speedy Delete he article on Century Financial Consultancy lacks independent reliable sources to establish notability as per WP:ORG. References provided seem like sponsored content (Gulf, Khaleej), The article's promotional tone violates also clearly violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy WP:NPOV. As for the creator BoroVoro, looking through his history is alarming. He drafties quite frequently, often before he's supposed to it seems, and it appears to be quite a red flag. It seems like this company page is tangled up with sock-puppetry, UPE, and intentional edits of bad faith. No accusations (I will assume good faith), but very strange all of this. Also ref-bombing. All of this screams red flag.
- PD Slessor (talk) 23:53, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Sir, I am the creator though I am fairly inexperienced. I am not aware of the respected other editor you have mentioned. (Francisjk2020 (talk) 08:04, 5 January 2024 (UTC))
- Keep:
Sir, Multiple Wikipedia editors have commented that the content is not promotional. There are also enough neutral sources available. They were recently voted as the best workplace to work in the GCC(Whole of Gulf)
- Sir here are some sources not from gulf news and khaleej
- https://www.thestatesman.com/india/dubai-based-companies-invest-hospitality-tourism-health-sectors-jk-1503037147.html
- https://www.thenews.com.pk/amp/985638-bal-krishen-rathore-indian-expat-who-turned-from-tea-boy-to-ceo-in-no-time
- https://www.arabianbusiness.com/industries/banking-finance/uaes-oldest-investment-services-firm-acquires-new-category-1-license
- https://www.thenationalnews.com/uae/2022/05/20/these-uae-companies-have-happiest-employees-according-to-survey-on-morale/ (Francisjk2020 (talk) 07:59, 5 January 2024 (UTC))
Recent achievements Century financial was voted as the best workplace to work in the UAE and the best workplace for women https://www.khaleejtimes.com/kt-network/century-financial-tops-the-best-workplaces-for-women-in-the-gcc
Also they made an investment of 100 million dollars into the Indian state of Jammu & Kashmir. https://awaamkibaat.jk.gov.in/jk-govt-signs-mou-with-century-financial-for-100-million-investment-in-jammu-kashmir/ (Francisjk2020 (talk) 08:17, 30 December 2023 (UTC))
Here are some sources I could find, I am not too good at selecting which ones are notable
https://www.khaleejtimes.com/kt-network/century-financial-wins-big-again
https://gulfnews.com/amp/business/corporate-news/uae-based-financial-sector-reaffirms-its-commitment-to-spearhead-sustainability-goals-ahead-of-cop28-1.1679900257627 (Francisjk2020 (talk) 08:31, 30 December 2023 (UTC))
- WP:ORGCRIT is useful in understanding what sources should be used in articles about organisations.
- I'd like like to note that my 'delete' opinion is based on WP:TNT and Wikipedia:Verifiability considerations: there's evidence of presented publications offering sponsored publications in their media kits and I couldn't find other English-language significant coverage, but I found that company's spokespeople are being routinely interviewed by Bloomberg on UAE-related matters (search for '"century financial" uae' in Wikimedia Library), so couldn't form a definite opinion whether it's notable or not. What's certain though, is that the sources used in both versions of the article (Century Financial and the one being currently discussed) are mostly inappropriate, as they're neither reliable for verification or helpful to establish Wikipedia:Notability, and the promotional thrust of both articles is unsuitable. PaulT2022 (talk) 18:31, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Considering the history od this article, would prefer a more definitive consensus either way here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 20:43, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- Delete: Gulf News is used for multiple references, it's listed as a marginally acceptable source per wiki and is yellow per the source toolbot... Having happy employees is great, but sourcing is usual corporate fluff articles or PR items saying where the company is investing. I still don't see NCORP. Oaktree b (talk) 20:48, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- Delete: and SALT for six months, for the same reasons it was deleted the previous time. This is a REFBOMBed corporate promotion piece, with no independent SIGCOV to establish notability. The previous AfD would have been closed exactly the same way even without Antonio Vinzaretti's tainted !vote. DRV didn't reject G4/G11, it simply declined to adjudicate on the matter, and rightly so. The latest incarnation could have--and I believe should have--been speedied as G4/G11. But as the nom says, we're here now, let's do this properly so that we don't have to do it again in two weeks. Owen× ☎ 21:19, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per above. JM (talk) 00:56, 6 January 2024 (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.