Home • Search • Translate
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 merge to Leoni AG. Best solution. can eventually be expanded into an article if sufficient material is available. TimTempleton would you do the merge? DGG ( talk ) 04:44, 29 March 2018 (UTC) reply

Leoni Wiring Systems Southeast

AfDs for this article:
Leoni Wiring Systems Southeast (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete Was nominated and withdrawn but by my analysis, the references are either broken links, mentions-in-passing or PRIMARY sources, therefore fails WP:ORGIND and/or WP:CORPDEPTH. There is nothing in the article to provide any indication as to the notability of this company. Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion or advertising, nor is it a Yellow Pages alternative. This appears to be a run-of-the-mill business with no indications of notability and fails WP:NCORP. HighKing ++ 14:47, 20 March 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 16:37, 20 March 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 16:37, 20 March 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - As per reasons of withdrawn nomination 7 days ago, the provided references are independent and are coming from the secondary sources except for minor ownership claim in the infobox template of article. The "broken link" claim is partially false as there is a problem with website's repository. Until the resolution for this issue is done, the alternative reference was put giving the financial figures of the company and also gives clear indication of notability as it is one of 100 largest business enterprises in Serbia and one of 10 largest employers in Serbia. Therefore, "run-of-the-mill business with no indications of notability" claim by the nominator is false. More than two thirds of current references are in line with WP:NCORP. The other third are references for financial figures, business ID or Tax ID. In my opinion, the whole nomination is full of incorrect and false persuasions which lack grounding in facts.-- AirWolf talk 15:46, 20 March 2018 (UTC) reply
    • Comment AirWolf, it appears that you are saying that Leoni is notable because it is one of the 100 laegest business enterprises in Serbia and one of the 10 largest employers in Serbia. If you can find a reference that is intellectually independent and states that Leoni is notable for that reason, please provide it here - otherwise it is just an opinion (yours?) that says "This is why Leoni is notable". Of the 10 references in the article, the first three are broken. Also, a common mistake many people make is by stating that the references are "independent" or "secondary sources". While this is sufficient for supporting facts and information within an article, this is not sufficient for establishing notability of a topic. Not only must sources be independent and secondary, but they must also provide independent content and not rely extensively on information produced/provided/published by the company. This N1info.com reference would fail as a reliable source since it has no accredited journalist/author - regardless, it is based on a company announcement and relies extensively on quotations from Klemens Sax, general manager for Serbia. It therefore fails both WP:RS and WP:ORGIND and/or WP:CORPDEPTH. This reference is a bare-bones company listing and fails WP:CORPDEPTH. This reference from dw.com is a mention-in-passing with no in-depth information and fails WP:CORPDEPTH. This blic.rs reference has no accredited journalist and fails WP:RS - regardless, the article was written in relation to Serbia's Minister of Finance and Economy opening a new Leoni factory and is based on a company announcement (and PR exercise), fails WP:ORGIND. This blic.rs reference is similarly an article written at the opening of a Leoni factory and is little more than a PR exercise and fails WP:ORGIND. Finally, this N1info reference is covering the exact same factory-opening ribbon-cutting PR exercise and also fails WP:ORGIND. Article must have intellectually independent content to meet the criteria for establishing notability and these articles fail on that single point. HighKing ++ 16:50, 20 March 2018 (UTC) reply
HighKing Sir, what is your intention by giving misleading statements? "Of the 10 references in the article, the first three are broken." - the second reference is not broken, and it, among other things, replaces (for the reason given above) two "broken link" references which both back only four financial figures (revenue, net income, assets, equity). The reference citing company's listing in infobox template was added once the notability was verified. Per WP:GNG and WP:ORGCRITE, the company is notable, as it has been "the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources." Also, the n1info.com and blic.rs references are not based on a "company announcement", but based on coverage by the national news agencies. Facts related to the annual financial figures, annual lists of the biggest gross/net exporters of Serbia and number of employees (all given by the independent sources) are all supporting to the notability of this topic, i.e. company.-- AirWolf talk 18:59, 20 March 2018 (UTC) reply
Hi AirWolf, the link wasn't working yesterday but thank you, it is working OK now and I was able to download the PDF. As I've already pointed out above, the standard set for establishing notability is a higher standard than that for supporting a claim within an article. Nobody is arguing that the sources are not independent secondary sources. The point is that they are not intellectually independent, which is a requirement for establishing the notability of organisations. The downloaded PDF is a Serbian government publication based on published annual financial statements and contains no independent opinion or analysis, therefore fails WP:ORGIND and/or WP:CORPDEPTH. HighKing ++ 13:13, 21 March 2018 (UTC) reply
HighKing I'm sorry, but this statement: "The downloaded PDF is a Serbian government publication based on published annual financial statements and contains no independent opinion or analysis" is incorrect. In accordance with the Law on Auditing of the Republic of Serbia [1] (in Serbian) and further explained on the website of the Agency for Business Registers of the Republic of Serbia (here [2] (in Serbian)), every company operating on the territory of Serbia which annual revenues exceed 4.4 million euros are obliged by law to have their financial reports revised by the independent accounting firms. Further, only audited financial reports which are subsequently analyzed and checked by the Agency for Business Registers, can be published by the governmental agencies and institutions in various forms. One such document was provided in the reference of this article. So, it clearly is in accordance with WP:ORGIND and/or WP:CORPDEPTH.-- AirWolf talk 14:47, 21 March 2018 (UTC) reply
AirWolf .. I'm not sure what exactly I said that was incorrect. It is a government publication based on published annual financial statements - whether they've been audited or not is immaterial, the Serbian legal system is not our concern. I believe you are missing the point though. Nobody is doubting the accuracy of the figures but essentially, you are saying that every company whose accounts are checked by the Agency for Business Registers in Serbia and subsequently published by the annual government report is notable and meets the criteria for notability. That is not the case. It may be an indication that the company might be notable but it doesn't mean it is automatically notable (same as companies that are floated on a stock exchange are not automatically notable). We still need two references that are "intellectually independent" and contain independent content. None of the references you have provided meets this criteria. Every company that has its accounts audited could claim that their accounts have been independently verified but this doesn't make it an intellectually independent reference. HighKing ++ 16:09, 22 March 2018 (UTC) reply
HighKing Once again, you are interpreting my words wrongfully and giving misleading conclusions. I have never said that the notability is tested if the company has audited financial reports, and later published by the relevant governmental agency. As our views regarding "intellectually independent" references (concerning WP:ORGIND) are diametrically opposite (as per reasons given above) with no indication of reaching consensus, and as evidenced in repeated false and misleading statements, I will stop discussing with you the matter of article's notability and reliability of its references. However, I am open to opinions from other users.-- AirWolf talk 17:03, 22 March 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete The place to cover this would be at the parent article Leoni AG IMO. Number 5 7 22:44, 22 March 2018 (UTC) reply
  • delete or merge to Leoni AG The best sources here are really focused not on the company but on the government subsidies (eg the DW ref) which are not even discussed here; the page is written more like a directory entry than something people can learn from about the state of industry or doing business in Serbia. Most of the refs are not independent at all (eg company reports or the government report summarizing the company report) or churnalism. The URLs in 2 of the refs don't work for me either. Jytdog ( talk) 04:10, 23 March 2018 (UTC) reply
@ Jytdog: I have deleted these "broken-link" references. If you look above in a discussion carefully, I have replied that I have added valid link as replacement for the financial figures and other statements, until the resolution for links to website's repository is found.-- AirWolf talk 11:26, 24 March 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. I don't find the deleting voices convincing at all. Apart from refs already in the article, it's pretty easy to find coverage of the company across a spectrum of Serbian media:
    • "Saradnja kompanije Leoni i niških fakulteta" [Cooperation of Leoni and faculties from Niš]. Radio Television of Serbia.
    • "„Леони" повећава производњу" [Leoni raises production]. Politika.
    • "FABRIKA LEONI USKORO NA RATARSKOM IMANJU, IZGLASALI GRADSKI VEĆNICI" [Leoni Factory soon on the Ratarsko Imanje venue, as voted by the city council]. RTV Kraljevo.
    • "Počela sa radom treća fabrika Leonija u Srbiji" [Third Leoni's factory in Serbia commenced operation]. Radio Television of Vojvodina.
    • "Vučić: Leoni postao najveći poslodavac u Srbiji, Niš će u 2018. doživeti "bum"" [Vučić: Leoni has became the largest employer in Serbia...]. Blic.
    • "I četvrta fabrika: 5.000 radnika - iz Kraljeva za Mercedes" [And the fourth factory: 5000 workers from Kraljevo for Mercedes]. B92.
and there are countless others, this was just a scratch from the top. Notability must be judged according to the breadth of total coverage, not just the one currently in the article, otherwise we should delete 80% of our articles. One does not have to cite-bomb a short article with hundreds of such just to prove the notability, I hope. No such user ( talk) 16:43, 23 March 2018 (UTC) reply
Yeah you clearly did just grab stuff, regardless of whether it was independent reporting or churnalism. This is not helpful in a consideration of notability. Jytdog ( talk) 20:03, 23 March 2018 (UTC) reply
Yeah you clearly just scream "churnalism" without even trying to investigate. Do you speak the language? Have you at least tried Google translate? Did you even check our articles about publishers? That is not helpful in a consideration of notability. No such user ( talk) 08:13, 24 March 2018 (UTC) reply
I looked at the sources and used google translate - churnalism is obvious in any language. Please bring high quality independent sources when you work in WP. Thanks. Jytdog ( talk) 08:47, 24 March 2018 (UTC) reply
@ Jytdog: First of all, people don't work on Wikipedia, they contribute. Obviously, there is only one concern in article's references even though there is significant coverage in news, and that is presence of churnalism in some of article's sources, namely WP:ORGIND violation is questionable - "any material which is substantially based on such press releases even if published by independent sources (churnalism)". In my opinion, there is no evidence of great presence of PR material, and also there are a couple of sources that are fully in accordance with the following statement - "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".-- AirWolf talk 11:22, 24 March 2018 (UTC) reply
No true Scotsman, Jytdog? AFD is not cleanup. At AFD, keep !voters are supposed to prove that the company has broad coverage in sources (the definition of notability), not to necessarily put forward sources that espouse critical views. Yes, like several other companies in the industry, Leoni has been criticized for exploiting cheap labor, pursuing political connections for subventions, and inhumane treatment of workers. To keep you happy, here's a couple:
No such user ( talk) 12:27, 24 March 2018 (UTC) reply
This is volunteer work. It is work. It it takes time and care. And User:No such user, please review WP:ORGCRIT -- sources need to be independent and have substantial discussion to "count" toward N. Please bring only that kind of source to AfD. And btw we just finished an RfC to significantly clarify the definition of sources that count toward N in a discussion of companies Please do review WP:ORGCRIT (yes I know it is work to go read that and think about it  :) ) Thanks. Jytdog ( talk) 15:33, 24 March 2018 (UTC) reply
@ Jytdog: I did review ORGCRIT (not that there is something radically new). Now, would you grant that at least a few of these 673 hits on the Radio Television of Serbia (the national broadcaster), the first ~30 solely about Leoni, count as Significant, Independent, Reliable and Secondary?There are several duplicates because of bad handling of Latin/Cyrillic in search, but still. No such user ( talk) 15:56, 24 March 2018 (UTC) reply
I am not engaging further with you here: i appreciate that you have at least acknowledged that the kinds of sources matter, but you have left your previous justifications all unstruck, and posted just yet another lazy search result. Please stop adding noise into this discussion. Jytdog ( talk) 16:12, 24 March 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Merge or Delete to parent company. From the article Leoni AG might not be notable either so would not be a valid merge target.
    Looking through the sources presented above;
    1. About subject. Translation reads like a hatchet job. Question about whether PressOnline.rs is a reliable source. If reliable it is enough to base a few lines on but not an entire article, particularly considering its perspective.
    2. Passing mention. Primarily about the city
    3. Probably a good source but not much coverage. It borders on ROUTINE. No reason to have stand-alone article based on this
    4. A passing mention. Primarily about economic plan
    5. A couple letters. No independent reporting. No contribution to notability as required by NORG
I see nothing which would overcome the deficiencies in the other sources. Certainly nothing which can overcome the guidelines presumption of/preference for dealing with subsidiaries within the parent company's article. Jbh Talk 15:12, 24 March 2018 (UTC) reply
@ Jbhunley: Are you analyzing sources from this diff, which include Radio Television of Serbia, Radio Television of Vojvodina, Politika, Blic and B92? While I could grant that they might be routine and/or influenced by politics, those are the top echelon of Serbian media; RTV coverage is very detailed and in neutral tone, for one. The sources you're talking about are the ones that are critical and/or skeptical about the company, and I could agree there is a mixed bag.
I couldn't care less about this particular article, but I can't resist the impression about double standards being employed here, and a lots of no true Scotsman arguments: sources already in the article are dismissed as "insufficient", sources from top mainstream media as "churnalism", and ones critical about the company as "unreliable" or "passing". No such user ( talk) 15:56, 24 March 2018 (UTC) reply
I was commenting on the ones from [3]. If you are talking about my commentary, I did not say the critical source was unreliable I questioned the publisher because at least in translation, the tone of the article is sensationalist — maybe it is RS maybe not. I would want a native speaker to make that call. I also said that the tone would not allow us to base an article on it alone but it would, if RS, be usable in the merged article. As to the other sources I reviewed, I do not know what double standard you are talking about. No matter the situation I would have made the same assessment of the sources.
I believe some of the issues you are seeing with sourcing comes from the new sourcing considerations in the revised WP:ORGIND. However, from what I have seen in the ones I have looked at, even if the sources being dismissed as 'churnalism' were accepted they would not be sufficient to overcome the presumption that subsidiaries should be addressed in their parent article. That would require some very in-depth and indisputably high-quality sources. If the Leoni AG article were stronger I would have !voted a straight Merge. Jbh Talk 16:30, 24 March 2018 (UTC) reply
@ Jbhunley: "However, from what I have seen in the ones I have looked at, even if the sources being dismissed as 'churnalism' were accepted they would not be sufficient to overcome the presumption that subsidiaries should be addressed in their parent article." I'm interested on what grounds someone determines that subsidiary companies should exclusively be addressed in their parent company articles and not to have separate articles. What about Telenor's subsidiaries? Also, you have evaded to answer the last section of User:No such user's previous comment.-- AirWolf talk 17:02, 24 March 2018 (UTC) reply
I have clearly stated my opinion on the sources I specified. I have evaded nothing. I may not have given an answer you want to hear or which you disagree with -- well I did not explicitly state that 'a passing mention is a passing mention' but I assure you I apply the same standard for that here as elsewhere.
As to your other question please see the first point in WP:BRANCH. Re Telenor's subsidiaries some of those articles may be justifiable based on SPINOUT but stuff like Telenor Avidi should not have an article. However as far as this AfD is concerned please see OTHERSTUFF. Jbh Talk 17:24, 24 March 2018 (UTC) reply
@ Jbhunley: I'm not talking about that single (former) subsidiary article (with total of 2 sentences). There are more than 10 Telenor's subsidiaries that clearly are not Telenor's corporate spin-off and are in contradiction with your statement that "subsidiaries should be addressed in their parent article" only. I'm asking how one determines that subsidiaries should be addressed in their parent article only. You have made a ridiculous statement and later called upon WP:OTHERSTUFF. It was never my intention to involve other examples just to justify this subsidiary. I'm calling you on that statement. Also, I respect all the opinions and arguments, but also sometimes need clarification for some of the arguments.-- AirWolf talk 17:47, 24 March 2018 (UTC) reply
@ Jbhunley: For example, WP:BRANCH is pretty good argument for further discussion in my opinion. As stated here: "unless they (notable subsidiaries) are substantially discussed by reliable independent sources that extend beyond the chapter's local area.", the focus in a discussion should continue to be examination of given sources.-- AirWolf talk 17:55, 24 March 2018 (UTC) reply
@ AirWolf: The sources are a bit difficult to engage with because nearly all are are in Serbian (which I note tends to support the lack of coverage 'beyond the local area') but what I would suggest, if you want to dig deeper into them, is to first apply the truth table at WP:ORGCRIT to, say, the five sources you think support notability. Since editors are pretty entrenched I would suggest a short comment on how you read each requirement ie what you consider significant etc. This will give a base line — actually two. The first is a common group of sources to work from. The second is explicit definition of how you interpret the ORGCRIT criteria. My guess is that the sticking points will be on how each editor sees the elements of ORGCRIT. From there at least everyone is discussing the same things in the same terms.
That all said, I do not know if such analysis would change the minds of those who are saying Merge. In my case, as I mentioned, it would take some really in-depth reporting on this subject. Enough that it overshadows the parent (That might not be hard if the current state of the parent reflects the actual coverage. If the parent is not notable I would more readily accept a stand alone article on the subsidiary.) or sources, at least one of which meets ORGCRIT backed up by some other lower level reporting, from outside of the Balkans.
I do not see discussion of the Telenor family of articles as being productive for two reasons: first is OTHERSTUFF ie it does not matter what was done elsewhere; the second, expanding on the first, is that the two are not analogous. The depth and breadth of sourcing differs as does the length of the individual articles so the arguments are not really transferable. Jbh Talk 18:40, 24 March 2018 (UTC) reply
@ Jbhunley: What is in your opinion the definition of "local area" (in context of subsidiaries in general - for noninternational and international companies) and what are the guidelines when you are determining that? Also, when you are suggesting for non-Serbian or non-Balkans reporting and sources, are you saying that the subsidiary company of large international company needs to be globally important or famous in order to have an article on Wikipedia (which contradicts WP:ORGSIG)?-- AirWolf talk 21:32, 25 March 2018 (UTC) reply
@ AirWolf: I can not think of a way to generalize without writing an essay but I can give a rough idea of my thinking. In this and similar cases I would say coverage needs to be by media outside the country/region where the subsidiary is headquartered. That is where one would expect any news minimally worthy of notice to be reported. (I guess that is as good a working definition of 'local' as any — The tier of media one could reasonably expect normal reporting of the subject to occur at.) There would also need to be enough 'local' coverage to flesh out a stand-alone article. Simply having a bit of 'non-local' coverage is not necessarily sufficient if everything can still be covered in a paragraph or two. A large amount of 'local' coverage on diverse matters that could not be properly explored in the parent's article would also weigh towards a spin-off. While the other end of the scale is if coverage were so great as to completely overshadow the parent such that the parent is only discussed in context of the subsidiary then there might be an article on the subsidiary and not the parent per NOTINHERRITED. It is a balancing act with the presumption, per BRANCH, being to address subsidiaries in the parent's article.
Part of the problem here is the parent article is, frankly, crap so it is hard to tell if the last of those situations might be the case. Another issue is that many of the sources for this article have been challenged as not meeting ORGCRIT/ORGIND. I would hazard that there may be issues of ORGDEPTH as well depending on which ones/how many end up passing ORGCRIT. For a Merge there is no need for this topic to meet ORGCRIT or ORGDEPTH or ORG anything. The sources just need to meet RS.
I do not know if that helped you understand my reasoning or not and I know there are a lot of if's and but's etc which can poke holes in this. It is not my intention to present a brief, rather I hope to simply outline my thinking in broad strokes. Jbh Talk 23:07, 25 March 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to a section in the parent article, Leoni AG, and pick up anything useful from the sources listed at this AfD. The suggested target is rather sparse, so this content (in a much condensed form, i.e. a couple of paras) would improve the target. This is a subsidiary, so it's appropriate to address the topic in the parent article. K.e.coffman ( talk) 17:38, 25 March 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - leaning towards merge and redirect, due to limited English sources, but I'm curious why there doesn't seem to be an article about this company on the Serbian Wikipedia. [ [4]] TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 20:57, 28 March 2018 (UTC) reply
@ Timtempleton: What are you trying to say in the latter part of your sentence?-- AirWolf talk 21:43, 28 March 2018 (UTC) reply
@ AirWolf: - I look at a lot of things when determining notability, to be fair. And I don't speak Serbian, so I'm not qualified to judge the sources. I went to see if Leoni's Serbian Wikipedia article was sourced better than this one, just in terms of quantity. I routinely do this for AfD when the articles are heavily sourced with foreign language publications. I was surprised to see there isn't a Serbian article. I'm familiar with WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and how it can be interpreted to say "don't judge an article by what else is or isn't out there," but I find it strange that a notable Serbian company wouldn't be on the Serbian site before an article is created on the English version. It's just one other thing that argues against the subject's notability, IMHO. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 21:58, 28 March 2018 (UTC) reply
@ Timtempleton: If that's how one determines topic's notability, based on topic's existence on different language editions of Wikipedia, may the Lord help us all. Also, let me remind you that Google Translate - a truly wonderful Google service app - was launched 11 years ago.-- AirWolf talk 00:24, 29 March 2018 (UTC) reply
It's just one other thing that argues against the subject's notability, but ultimately, the article doesn't need the Lord's help - just a few good sources to pass WP:GNG. Right now it doesn't. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 01:38, 29 March 2018 (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.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Leoni_Wiring_Systems_Southeast_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1136110705"
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 merge to Leoni AG. Best solution. can eventually be expanded into an article if sufficient material is available. TimTempleton would you do the merge? DGG ( talk ) 04:44, 29 March 2018 (UTC) reply

Leoni Wiring Systems Southeast

AfDs for this article:
Leoni Wiring Systems Southeast (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete Was nominated and withdrawn but by my analysis, the references are either broken links, mentions-in-passing or PRIMARY sources, therefore fails WP:ORGIND and/or WP:CORPDEPTH. There is nothing in the article to provide any indication as to the notability of this company. Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion or advertising, nor is it a Yellow Pages alternative. This appears to be a run-of-the-mill business with no indications of notability and fails WP:NCORP. HighKing ++ 14:47, 20 March 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 16:37, 20 March 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 16:37, 20 March 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - As per reasons of withdrawn nomination 7 days ago, the provided references are independent and are coming from the secondary sources except for minor ownership claim in the infobox template of article. The "broken link" claim is partially false as there is a problem with website's repository. Until the resolution for this issue is done, the alternative reference was put giving the financial figures of the company and also gives clear indication of notability as it is one of 100 largest business enterprises in Serbia and one of 10 largest employers in Serbia. Therefore, "run-of-the-mill business with no indications of notability" claim by the nominator is false. More than two thirds of current references are in line with WP:NCORP. The other third are references for financial figures, business ID or Tax ID. In my opinion, the whole nomination is full of incorrect and false persuasions which lack grounding in facts.-- AirWolf talk 15:46, 20 March 2018 (UTC) reply
    • Comment AirWolf, it appears that you are saying that Leoni is notable because it is one of the 100 laegest business enterprises in Serbia and one of the 10 largest employers in Serbia. If you can find a reference that is intellectually independent and states that Leoni is notable for that reason, please provide it here - otherwise it is just an opinion (yours?) that says "This is why Leoni is notable". Of the 10 references in the article, the first three are broken. Also, a common mistake many people make is by stating that the references are "independent" or "secondary sources". While this is sufficient for supporting facts and information within an article, this is not sufficient for establishing notability of a topic. Not only must sources be independent and secondary, but they must also provide independent content and not rely extensively on information produced/provided/published by the company. This N1info.com reference would fail as a reliable source since it has no accredited journalist/author - regardless, it is based on a company announcement and relies extensively on quotations from Klemens Sax, general manager for Serbia. It therefore fails both WP:RS and WP:ORGIND and/or WP:CORPDEPTH. This reference is a bare-bones company listing and fails WP:CORPDEPTH. This reference from dw.com is a mention-in-passing with no in-depth information and fails WP:CORPDEPTH. This blic.rs reference has no accredited journalist and fails WP:RS - regardless, the article was written in relation to Serbia's Minister of Finance and Economy opening a new Leoni factory and is based on a company announcement (and PR exercise), fails WP:ORGIND. This blic.rs reference is similarly an article written at the opening of a Leoni factory and is little more than a PR exercise and fails WP:ORGIND. Finally, this N1info reference is covering the exact same factory-opening ribbon-cutting PR exercise and also fails WP:ORGIND. Article must have intellectually independent content to meet the criteria for establishing notability and these articles fail on that single point. HighKing ++ 16:50, 20 March 2018 (UTC) reply
HighKing Sir, what is your intention by giving misleading statements? "Of the 10 references in the article, the first three are broken." - the second reference is not broken, and it, among other things, replaces (for the reason given above) two "broken link" references which both back only four financial figures (revenue, net income, assets, equity). The reference citing company's listing in infobox template was added once the notability was verified. Per WP:GNG and WP:ORGCRITE, the company is notable, as it has been "the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources." Also, the n1info.com and blic.rs references are not based on a "company announcement", but based on coverage by the national news agencies. Facts related to the annual financial figures, annual lists of the biggest gross/net exporters of Serbia and number of employees (all given by the independent sources) are all supporting to the notability of this topic, i.e. company.-- AirWolf talk 18:59, 20 March 2018 (UTC) reply
Hi AirWolf, the link wasn't working yesterday but thank you, it is working OK now and I was able to download the PDF. As I've already pointed out above, the standard set for establishing notability is a higher standard than that for supporting a claim within an article. Nobody is arguing that the sources are not independent secondary sources. The point is that they are not intellectually independent, which is a requirement for establishing the notability of organisations. The downloaded PDF is a Serbian government publication based on published annual financial statements and contains no independent opinion or analysis, therefore fails WP:ORGIND and/or WP:CORPDEPTH. HighKing ++ 13:13, 21 March 2018 (UTC) reply
HighKing I'm sorry, but this statement: "The downloaded PDF is a Serbian government publication based on published annual financial statements and contains no independent opinion or analysis" is incorrect. In accordance with the Law on Auditing of the Republic of Serbia [1] (in Serbian) and further explained on the website of the Agency for Business Registers of the Republic of Serbia (here [2] (in Serbian)), every company operating on the territory of Serbia which annual revenues exceed 4.4 million euros are obliged by law to have their financial reports revised by the independent accounting firms. Further, only audited financial reports which are subsequently analyzed and checked by the Agency for Business Registers, can be published by the governmental agencies and institutions in various forms. One such document was provided in the reference of this article. So, it clearly is in accordance with WP:ORGIND and/or WP:CORPDEPTH.-- AirWolf talk 14:47, 21 March 2018 (UTC) reply
AirWolf .. I'm not sure what exactly I said that was incorrect. It is a government publication based on published annual financial statements - whether they've been audited or not is immaterial, the Serbian legal system is not our concern. I believe you are missing the point though. Nobody is doubting the accuracy of the figures but essentially, you are saying that every company whose accounts are checked by the Agency for Business Registers in Serbia and subsequently published by the annual government report is notable and meets the criteria for notability. That is not the case. It may be an indication that the company might be notable but it doesn't mean it is automatically notable (same as companies that are floated on a stock exchange are not automatically notable). We still need two references that are "intellectually independent" and contain independent content. None of the references you have provided meets this criteria. Every company that has its accounts audited could claim that their accounts have been independently verified but this doesn't make it an intellectually independent reference. HighKing ++ 16:09, 22 March 2018 (UTC) reply
HighKing Once again, you are interpreting my words wrongfully and giving misleading conclusions. I have never said that the notability is tested if the company has audited financial reports, and later published by the relevant governmental agency. As our views regarding "intellectually independent" references (concerning WP:ORGIND) are diametrically opposite (as per reasons given above) with no indication of reaching consensus, and as evidenced in repeated false and misleading statements, I will stop discussing with you the matter of article's notability and reliability of its references. However, I am open to opinions from other users.-- AirWolf talk 17:03, 22 March 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete The place to cover this would be at the parent article Leoni AG IMO. Number 5 7 22:44, 22 March 2018 (UTC) reply
  • delete or merge to Leoni AG The best sources here are really focused not on the company but on the government subsidies (eg the DW ref) which are not even discussed here; the page is written more like a directory entry than something people can learn from about the state of industry or doing business in Serbia. Most of the refs are not independent at all (eg company reports or the government report summarizing the company report) or churnalism. The URLs in 2 of the refs don't work for me either. Jytdog ( talk) 04:10, 23 March 2018 (UTC) reply
@ Jytdog: I have deleted these "broken-link" references. If you look above in a discussion carefully, I have replied that I have added valid link as replacement for the financial figures and other statements, until the resolution for links to website's repository is found.-- AirWolf talk 11:26, 24 March 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. I don't find the deleting voices convincing at all. Apart from refs already in the article, it's pretty easy to find coverage of the company across a spectrum of Serbian media:
    • "Saradnja kompanije Leoni i niških fakulteta" [Cooperation of Leoni and faculties from Niš]. Radio Television of Serbia.
    • "„Леони" повећава производњу" [Leoni raises production]. Politika.
    • "FABRIKA LEONI USKORO NA RATARSKOM IMANJU, IZGLASALI GRADSKI VEĆNICI" [Leoni Factory soon on the Ratarsko Imanje venue, as voted by the city council]. RTV Kraljevo.
    • "Počela sa radom treća fabrika Leonija u Srbiji" [Third Leoni's factory in Serbia commenced operation]. Radio Television of Vojvodina.
    • "Vučić: Leoni postao najveći poslodavac u Srbiji, Niš će u 2018. doživeti "bum"" [Vučić: Leoni has became the largest employer in Serbia...]. Blic.
    • "I četvrta fabrika: 5.000 radnika - iz Kraljeva za Mercedes" [And the fourth factory: 5000 workers from Kraljevo for Mercedes]. B92.
and there are countless others, this was just a scratch from the top. Notability must be judged according to the breadth of total coverage, not just the one currently in the article, otherwise we should delete 80% of our articles. One does not have to cite-bomb a short article with hundreds of such just to prove the notability, I hope. No such user ( talk) 16:43, 23 March 2018 (UTC) reply
Yeah you clearly did just grab stuff, regardless of whether it was independent reporting or churnalism. This is not helpful in a consideration of notability. Jytdog ( talk) 20:03, 23 March 2018 (UTC) reply
Yeah you clearly just scream "churnalism" without even trying to investigate. Do you speak the language? Have you at least tried Google translate? Did you even check our articles about publishers? That is not helpful in a consideration of notability. No such user ( talk) 08:13, 24 March 2018 (UTC) reply
I looked at the sources and used google translate - churnalism is obvious in any language. Please bring high quality independent sources when you work in WP. Thanks. Jytdog ( talk) 08:47, 24 March 2018 (UTC) reply
@ Jytdog: First of all, people don't work on Wikipedia, they contribute. Obviously, there is only one concern in article's references even though there is significant coverage in news, and that is presence of churnalism in some of article's sources, namely WP:ORGIND violation is questionable - "any material which is substantially based on such press releases even if published by independent sources (churnalism)". In my opinion, there is no evidence of great presence of PR material, and also there are a couple of sources that are fully in accordance with the following statement - "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".-- AirWolf talk 11:22, 24 March 2018 (UTC) reply
No true Scotsman, Jytdog? AFD is not cleanup. At AFD, keep !voters are supposed to prove that the company has broad coverage in sources (the definition of notability), not to necessarily put forward sources that espouse critical views. Yes, like several other companies in the industry, Leoni has been criticized for exploiting cheap labor, pursuing political connections for subventions, and inhumane treatment of workers. To keep you happy, here's a couple:
No such user ( talk) 12:27, 24 March 2018 (UTC) reply
This is volunteer work. It is work. It it takes time and care. And User:No such user, please review WP:ORGCRIT -- sources need to be independent and have substantial discussion to "count" toward N. Please bring only that kind of source to AfD. And btw we just finished an RfC to significantly clarify the definition of sources that count toward N in a discussion of companies Please do review WP:ORGCRIT (yes I know it is work to go read that and think about it  :) ) Thanks. Jytdog ( talk) 15:33, 24 March 2018 (UTC) reply
@ Jytdog: I did review ORGCRIT (not that there is something radically new). Now, would you grant that at least a few of these 673 hits on the Radio Television of Serbia (the national broadcaster), the first ~30 solely about Leoni, count as Significant, Independent, Reliable and Secondary?There are several duplicates because of bad handling of Latin/Cyrillic in search, but still. No such user ( talk) 15:56, 24 March 2018 (UTC) reply
I am not engaging further with you here: i appreciate that you have at least acknowledged that the kinds of sources matter, but you have left your previous justifications all unstruck, and posted just yet another lazy search result. Please stop adding noise into this discussion. Jytdog ( talk) 16:12, 24 March 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Merge or Delete to parent company. From the article Leoni AG might not be notable either so would not be a valid merge target.
    Looking through the sources presented above;
    1. About subject. Translation reads like a hatchet job. Question about whether PressOnline.rs is a reliable source. If reliable it is enough to base a few lines on but not an entire article, particularly considering its perspective.
    2. Passing mention. Primarily about the city
    3. Probably a good source but not much coverage. It borders on ROUTINE. No reason to have stand-alone article based on this
    4. A passing mention. Primarily about economic plan
    5. A couple letters. No independent reporting. No contribution to notability as required by NORG
I see nothing which would overcome the deficiencies in the other sources. Certainly nothing which can overcome the guidelines presumption of/preference for dealing with subsidiaries within the parent company's article. Jbh Talk 15:12, 24 March 2018 (UTC) reply
@ Jbhunley: Are you analyzing sources from this diff, which include Radio Television of Serbia, Radio Television of Vojvodina, Politika, Blic and B92? While I could grant that they might be routine and/or influenced by politics, those are the top echelon of Serbian media; RTV coverage is very detailed and in neutral tone, for one. The sources you're talking about are the ones that are critical and/or skeptical about the company, and I could agree there is a mixed bag.
I couldn't care less about this particular article, but I can't resist the impression about double standards being employed here, and a lots of no true Scotsman arguments: sources already in the article are dismissed as "insufficient", sources from top mainstream media as "churnalism", and ones critical about the company as "unreliable" or "passing". No such user ( talk) 15:56, 24 March 2018 (UTC) reply
I was commenting on the ones from [3]. If you are talking about my commentary, I did not say the critical source was unreliable I questioned the publisher because at least in translation, the tone of the article is sensationalist — maybe it is RS maybe not. I would want a native speaker to make that call. I also said that the tone would not allow us to base an article on it alone but it would, if RS, be usable in the merged article. As to the other sources I reviewed, I do not know what double standard you are talking about. No matter the situation I would have made the same assessment of the sources.
I believe some of the issues you are seeing with sourcing comes from the new sourcing considerations in the revised WP:ORGIND. However, from what I have seen in the ones I have looked at, even if the sources being dismissed as 'churnalism' were accepted they would not be sufficient to overcome the presumption that subsidiaries should be addressed in their parent article. That would require some very in-depth and indisputably high-quality sources. If the Leoni AG article were stronger I would have !voted a straight Merge. Jbh Talk 16:30, 24 March 2018 (UTC) reply
@ Jbhunley: "However, from what I have seen in the ones I have looked at, even if the sources being dismissed as 'churnalism' were accepted they would not be sufficient to overcome the presumption that subsidiaries should be addressed in their parent article." I'm interested on what grounds someone determines that subsidiary companies should exclusively be addressed in their parent company articles and not to have separate articles. What about Telenor's subsidiaries? Also, you have evaded to answer the last section of User:No such user's previous comment.-- AirWolf talk 17:02, 24 March 2018 (UTC) reply
I have clearly stated my opinion on the sources I specified. I have evaded nothing. I may not have given an answer you want to hear or which you disagree with -- well I did not explicitly state that 'a passing mention is a passing mention' but I assure you I apply the same standard for that here as elsewhere.
As to your other question please see the first point in WP:BRANCH. Re Telenor's subsidiaries some of those articles may be justifiable based on SPINOUT but stuff like Telenor Avidi should not have an article. However as far as this AfD is concerned please see OTHERSTUFF. Jbh Talk 17:24, 24 March 2018 (UTC) reply
@ Jbhunley: I'm not talking about that single (former) subsidiary article (with total of 2 sentences). There are more than 10 Telenor's subsidiaries that clearly are not Telenor's corporate spin-off and are in contradiction with your statement that "subsidiaries should be addressed in their parent article" only. I'm asking how one determines that subsidiaries should be addressed in their parent article only. You have made a ridiculous statement and later called upon WP:OTHERSTUFF. It was never my intention to involve other examples just to justify this subsidiary. I'm calling you on that statement. Also, I respect all the opinions and arguments, but also sometimes need clarification for some of the arguments.-- AirWolf talk 17:47, 24 March 2018 (UTC) reply
@ Jbhunley: For example, WP:BRANCH is pretty good argument for further discussion in my opinion. As stated here: "unless they (notable subsidiaries) are substantially discussed by reliable independent sources that extend beyond the chapter's local area.", the focus in a discussion should continue to be examination of given sources.-- AirWolf talk 17:55, 24 March 2018 (UTC) reply
@ AirWolf: The sources are a bit difficult to engage with because nearly all are are in Serbian (which I note tends to support the lack of coverage 'beyond the local area') but what I would suggest, if you want to dig deeper into them, is to first apply the truth table at WP:ORGCRIT to, say, the five sources you think support notability. Since editors are pretty entrenched I would suggest a short comment on how you read each requirement ie what you consider significant etc. This will give a base line — actually two. The first is a common group of sources to work from. The second is explicit definition of how you interpret the ORGCRIT criteria. My guess is that the sticking points will be on how each editor sees the elements of ORGCRIT. From there at least everyone is discussing the same things in the same terms.
That all said, I do not know if such analysis would change the minds of those who are saying Merge. In my case, as I mentioned, it would take some really in-depth reporting on this subject. Enough that it overshadows the parent (That might not be hard if the current state of the parent reflects the actual coverage. If the parent is not notable I would more readily accept a stand alone article on the subsidiary.) or sources, at least one of which meets ORGCRIT backed up by some other lower level reporting, from outside of the Balkans.
I do not see discussion of the Telenor family of articles as being productive for two reasons: first is OTHERSTUFF ie it does not matter what was done elsewhere; the second, expanding on the first, is that the two are not analogous. The depth and breadth of sourcing differs as does the length of the individual articles so the arguments are not really transferable. Jbh Talk 18:40, 24 March 2018 (UTC) reply
@ Jbhunley: What is in your opinion the definition of "local area" (in context of subsidiaries in general - for noninternational and international companies) and what are the guidelines when you are determining that? Also, when you are suggesting for non-Serbian or non-Balkans reporting and sources, are you saying that the subsidiary company of large international company needs to be globally important or famous in order to have an article on Wikipedia (which contradicts WP:ORGSIG)?-- AirWolf talk 21:32, 25 March 2018 (UTC) reply
@ AirWolf: I can not think of a way to generalize without writing an essay but I can give a rough idea of my thinking. In this and similar cases I would say coverage needs to be by media outside the country/region where the subsidiary is headquartered. That is where one would expect any news minimally worthy of notice to be reported. (I guess that is as good a working definition of 'local' as any — The tier of media one could reasonably expect normal reporting of the subject to occur at.) There would also need to be enough 'local' coverage to flesh out a stand-alone article. Simply having a bit of 'non-local' coverage is not necessarily sufficient if everything can still be covered in a paragraph or two. A large amount of 'local' coverage on diverse matters that could not be properly explored in the parent's article would also weigh towards a spin-off. While the other end of the scale is if coverage were so great as to completely overshadow the parent such that the parent is only discussed in context of the subsidiary then there might be an article on the subsidiary and not the parent per NOTINHERRITED. It is a balancing act with the presumption, per BRANCH, being to address subsidiaries in the parent's article.
Part of the problem here is the parent article is, frankly, crap so it is hard to tell if the last of those situations might be the case. Another issue is that many of the sources for this article have been challenged as not meeting ORGCRIT/ORGIND. I would hazard that there may be issues of ORGDEPTH as well depending on which ones/how many end up passing ORGCRIT. For a Merge there is no need for this topic to meet ORGCRIT or ORGDEPTH or ORG anything. The sources just need to meet RS.
I do not know if that helped you understand my reasoning or not and I know there are a lot of if's and but's etc which can poke holes in this. It is not my intention to present a brief, rather I hope to simply outline my thinking in broad strokes. Jbh Talk 23:07, 25 March 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to a section in the parent article, Leoni AG, and pick up anything useful from the sources listed at this AfD. The suggested target is rather sparse, so this content (in a much condensed form, i.e. a couple of paras) would improve the target. This is a subsidiary, so it's appropriate to address the topic in the parent article. K.e.coffman ( talk) 17:38, 25 March 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - leaning towards merge and redirect, due to limited English sources, but I'm curious why there doesn't seem to be an article about this company on the Serbian Wikipedia. [ [4]] TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 20:57, 28 March 2018 (UTC) reply
@ Timtempleton: What are you trying to say in the latter part of your sentence?-- AirWolf talk 21:43, 28 March 2018 (UTC) reply
@ AirWolf: - I look at a lot of things when determining notability, to be fair. And I don't speak Serbian, so I'm not qualified to judge the sources. I went to see if Leoni's Serbian Wikipedia article was sourced better than this one, just in terms of quantity. I routinely do this for AfD when the articles are heavily sourced with foreign language publications. I was surprised to see there isn't a Serbian article. I'm familiar with WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and how it can be interpreted to say "don't judge an article by what else is or isn't out there," but I find it strange that a notable Serbian company wouldn't be on the Serbian site before an article is created on the English version. It's just one other thing that argues against the subject's notability, IMHO. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 21:58, 28 March 2018 (UTC) reply
@ Timtempleton: If that's how one determines topic's notability, based on topic's existence on different language editions of Wikipedia, may the Lord help us all. Also, let me remind you that Google Translate - a truly wonderful Google service app - was launched 11 years ago.-- AirWolf talk 00:24, 29 March 2018 (UTC) reply
It's just one other thing that argues against the subject's notability, but ultimately, the article doesn't need the Lord's help - just a few good sources to pass WP:GNG. Right now it doesn't. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 01:38, 29 March 2018 (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.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Leoni_Wiring_Systems_Southeast_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1136110705"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE