Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Enterprise Group (Ghana)

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. Strong arguments presented by both sides, but after three weeks, no consensus either way. Owen× ☎ 13:58, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Enterprise Group (Ghana)

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

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

This company does not meet any notability requirement. In the article's current form, all sources are primary and there is nothing out there to indicate notability per before search Ednabrenze (talk) 08:14, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Ghana. Ednabrenze (talk) 08:14, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:40, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete References are purely promotional. Unlikely notability could ever be established. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 12:04, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The company is a member of the GSE Composite Index, so WP:LISTED probably applies here. A search on a News Ghana returns a few dozen articles about the company. Brandon (talk) 16:57, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The search result you presented all come from a single source which is News Ghana and seems to be unreliable news website. At the bottom of all their articles they ask people to send in their news stories to a Gmail address. Which reliable media organisation uses such an email server? Besides, some of the articles about the subject published by the source (News Ghana) you presented are also attributed to GNA (Ghana News Agency) indicating that the articles are syndicated sponsored posts. Over all, the source you presented is not reliable and lacking in editorial oversight as it seems incapable to source its own news stories. Ednabrenze (talk) 06:45, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You will have to forgive me as I am not an expert on media in Ghana. A similar search on the Daily Graphic (Ghana) returns similar results. Same with Business and Financial Times. Are there specific Ghanaian news sources you'd consider reliable? Brandon (talk) 07:25, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Though the sources are promotional, that does not mean it is notable. You say you did a before search, but somehow when I search it up I am able to find numerous different sources establishing notability. — 48 JCL 23:44, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please present the sources that establish notability. Before search only brings sponsored or paid for articles and those can't be used to prove notability. Please see my response to the claim of " A search on a News Ghana returns a few dozen articles about the company" above. Ednabrenze (talk) 08:36, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:37, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep may look not sourced well but it meets Listed rule and I see it does have some sufficient reliable sources. Dirubii Olchoglu (talk) 08:11, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The people suggesting keep need to explain how it meets the expectations for corporations.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:04, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While the vast majority of the third-party content about this company is ineligible to be considered for notability under WP:ORGTRIV, and while WP:LISTED is not a presumption of notability but rather an indication that sources likely exist, I did find a handful of independent, reliable examples of WP:SIGCOV (Modern Ghana here, here, here plus GhanaWeb) that clear the bar of WP:NCORP. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:07, 24 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. ~~Looking at the sources provided by Dclemens above, this is an article reporting on residents complaints about a totally different company so I doubt if Dclemens even bothered to read this article.~~ This is about the rebranding and name change, totally relies on the company announcements and "launch", no in-depth "Independent Content". This, the third article from Modern Ghana is about the opening of new offices and what was said by the CEO at the ribbon-cutting ceremony, ending with a two sentence description about the company, not in-depth "Independent Content", fails NCORP. Finally, the GhanaWeb article has nothing to do with this company, ~~again begging the question was this article actually read~~. I'm unable to locate any analyst reports containing sufficient in-depth Independent Content to meet our criteria. Finally, more than one editor has used reasoning that WP:LISTED applies therefore it meets our notability criteria - except LISTED clearly says a listing doesn't mean the company is automatically notable - we still require sourcing that meets our criteria. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:33, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@HighKing I would appreciate it if you would withdraw your comments above, "I doubt if Dclemens even bothered to read this article" and "again begging the question was this article actually read" per WP:AGF. I did indeed read the articles. They are not about a totally different company. The headline in Modern Ghana says: "Ayimensah-Kweiman residents bare teeth at Ken Ofori-Atta's Enterprise Group for snatching land to construct commercial cemetery, mortuary." Ofori-Atta was a director of the Enterprise Group until 2015, according to page 7 of the annual report on the website of the same Enterprise Group that is the subject of this AfD, thus, unless you believe ModernGhana to be an entirely unreliable source, the article is talking about the correct company. The GhanaWeb article also discusses allegations about the influence of the same Enterprise Group (see reference to Ofori-Atta starting in the sixth paragraph). I don't !vote in an AfD unless I have reviewed the sources and done a WP:BEFORE search, and it is not WP:CIVIL for an editor to accuse another of lying about reading the sources. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:21, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct and I've withdrawn the comments which say the articles refer to a different company and any reference or implication that you may not have read the articles. I also accept that my comments were personal and entirely unnecessary and for that I apologise. In the interests of completeness, this does not mean that because those articles mention the company that they meet GNG/WP:NCORP criteria for establishing notability. The first article relating to the residents' protest is a mention in passing only which provides no information about the company. I would be interested to hear why you believe this meets the criteria, specifically, what content within that article is in-depth "Independent Content" about the company. Similarly with the GhanaWeb article, it mentions the company in passing, no other information, so I'm interested to understand what specific content makes you say it goes towards notability? HighKing⁺⁺ 11:28, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the apology. Quick reply on the substance: Modern Ghana #1 has SIGCOV of the company for criticism of its development plans. (It may not look like it references the company but the story doesn't capitalize its name to make it as easily identifiable. There are several references to it and the protests are specifically against the company.) Modern Ghana #2 is an article about the company's rebranding, and rebranding is not excluded as "routine coverage" under WP:ORGTRIV. Unless it's a reprint of a press release or an interview, I'm not in the business of identifying how much independent reporting did or didn't go into it. It doesn't solely quote from the company's officials, though. Modern Ghana #3 might initially appear to be disqualified under ORGTRIV, but that only excludes routine coverage of "openings and closings of local branches, franchises and shops," and this is coverage of its corporate headquarters. The GhanaWeb piece is the weakest but it provides coverage of the role of Enterprise Group executives in influencing Ghanaian finance policy. YMMV, and I don't think your assessment is unreasonable, but I also think mine is reasonable based on the applicable criteria as discussed above. In borderline cases like this one I generally let the balance tip toward interpreting the sources to qualify rather than be excluded. (P.S. I'll be offline most of the rest of the week, at least away from my laptop, so won't be able to chime in further.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:48, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per the arguments given by User:HighKing which have convinced me that this does not pass WP:GNG/WP:NCORP TarnishedPath^talk 11:00, 31 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.