Talk:Hitachi Zosen Inova

Notability tag

Copied over from my talk page.

The Huhsz, You need to review WP:CORPDEPTH. The article as it stands completely fails that.

Source review: 1) Standard corporate directory entry. No coverage. 2, 3, 5, 7) All are considered trivial mentions under WP:CORPDEPTH, in particular "expansions, acquisitions, mergers, sale, or closure of the business" 4) Unreliable blog, news site. 6) Just an advertisement for the product that is likely self published.

Thus, the article wholly fails the requirements of WP:NCORP. Even if 4 was considered fully reliable or a notable publication, that still puts this article short one article to meet the aforementioned standard. I'm restoring the tag and posting this to the talk page. It should be noted that when I reviewed the page, I very much considered draftifying or sending to AfD, but I'm giving a benefit of a doubt. If it's not corrected, or the tag is removed without improvement, then one of those routes will have to be considered. Sulfurboy (talk) 13:32, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

I see, Sulfurboy, so you are worried about Deep or significant coverage provides an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization. I would argue that BOSS Magazine is not a "blog site"; perhaps you misread that. Here is their "about us" page, and it looks like an industry news site. I would also argue that as a company which claims to be "a global leader in energy from waste (EfW)" it easily passes our notability threshold. Just a thought; did you consider trying to improve the article rather than sticking a tag on it? I will try to find additional sources myself, and if it comes to it I will contest an AfD happily. Meanwhile, the source I just easily found and added also didn't look like a blog to me and contains a potted history of the company and I would argue happily takes us across the WP:NCORP criterion. --The Huhsz (talk) 13:59, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

The Huhsz, Per BOSS magazine's own "about us" section, they are a marketing company and thus the article is a paid for press release. The additional article you added is still just a routine announcement of a contract being awarded. This page still doesn't come close to meeting notability standards. I would advise maybe re-reading the aforementioned policies. Sulfurboy (talk) 14:07, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice. It's interesting to have your opinion. These contracts are worth hundreds of millions; if it is the considered opinion of the wise heads at AfD that this is less fitting for a Wikipedia article than Arceus is, I will take my lumps. You didn't answer my question about article improvement, so I took a look at your contributions and I see it's not really something you do. You have made 41,000 edits without ever editing any page more than 20 times. That article, Maryna Tkachuk, is one you have (quite rightly) removed crappy material from on BLP grounds, but doesn't show me any evidence that you have ever done any writing or article improvement. If this is true, you should consider trying it some time. It can be a lot of fun. --The Huhsz (talk) 14:20, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

I've removed the notability tag. This is a major, even word-leading company with many sources. The article can of course be improved, but I think the current sourcing demonstrates that the subject meets WP:GNG. If you disagree, WP:AfD is thataway. --The Huhsz (talk) 10:40, 1 April 2020 (UTC)