- 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 keep, after extended time for discussion. Improvement of the article by participants has clearly shifted the discussion towards a consensus for keeping based on demonstrable notability of the subject. BD2412 T 00:16, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Icade
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Icade ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Poorly sourced, and the few sources that are used are mainly primary, dependent sources. There's a promotional tone, and a questionable WP:NCORP Graywalls ( talk) 23:30, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Graywalls ( talk) 23:30, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Graywalls ( talk) 23:30, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Graywalls ( talk) 23:30, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Graywalls ( talk) 23:30, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep - a simple google search shows that references and a number of independent sources exist. it ranks among the largest publicly traded property developers in France.
[1] it has a number of firsts For the first time in France, Origine aims to achieve a very high environmental performance combining four certifications (HQE 2016 with an Excellent rating, BREEAM with an Excellent rating, LEED with a Gold rating and WELL with a Silver rating), as well as two quality labels (Biodiversity and E+C-), a first in France. The project includes the installation of 2,800 solar panels.
[2]
[3]. Icade is the number one real-estate investment company in office space and business parks in the greater Paris region, the number one real-estate investment company in healthcare in France . before nominating an article for
AFD it should at least be vetted for cleanup/fixing; that's first and foremost. I also don't consider saying among the first to be promoting the company.
Grmike (
talk) 17:59, 22 May 2020 (UTC)grmike
- comment icade is a former member of the forbes 2000 list. and longstanding member of the SBF 120. Such companies will need offices and some of the best in Paris are owned by Icade, one of France’s largest property business. [4]. Icade owns many of the buildings that make up the canary wharf of paris the daily telegraph [5]. moved into Germany in 2019 with major acquisitions [6], It establishes Europe's first europe-wide healthcare REIT [7], first low energy solar powered buildings in France independent.co.uk Grmike ( talk) 18:37, 22 May 2020 (UTC)grmike
- I must wonder if you have bothered to read, and cared what
WP:CORPDEPTH, and
WP:ORGIND has to say. I'm not going to pick through each of the source, but skimming through, the sources you linked are not something that pass the criteria. It's irrelevant how in depth the source is if it's
WP:CHURNALISM or not fully independent.
Graywalls (
talk) 10:37, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
- they say if a source only talks about ranks/awards then it may be considered a trivial source. I don't believe that the sources are guilty of that. if a company does rank high that in itself can be notable
Forbes Global 2000 takes the company's size in addition to other factors into consideration. being on that list can be used to establish notability.
Grmike (
talk) 23:05, 25 May 2020 (UTC)grmike
- comment - the company is a beneficiary of a number of awards. [8] in the top 5% of the highest scoring listed companies in the real estate investment segment (world). Grmike ( talk) 18:37, 22 May 2020 (UTC)grmike
- comment - Icade is notable enough to be on the German wiki [9], French wiki [10], Italian wiki [11], and others. 26 different users contributed to its content. Grmike ( talk) 19:27, 22 May 2020 (UTC)grmike
- comment - icade is an engineering company, a property development company and a property manager. it is notable in 3 fields, it is not only a REIT. Grmike ( talk) 20:12, 22 May 2020 (UTC)grmike
- they say if a source only talks about ranks/awards then it may be considered a trivial source. I don't believe that the sources are guilty of that. if a company does rank high that in itself can be notable
Forbes Global 2000 takes the company's size in addition to other factors into consideration. being on that list can be used to establish notability.
Grmike (
talk) 23:05, 25 May 2020 (UTC)grmike
- I must wonder if you have bothered to read, and cared what
WP:CORPDEPTH, and
WP:ORGIND has to say. I'm not going to pick through each of the source, but skimming through, the sources you linked are not something that pass the criteria. It's irrelevant how in depth the source is if it's
WP:CHURNALISM or not fully independent.
Graywalls (
talk) 10:37, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
- addressing the series of comments above The notability standards that apply to organizations and companies are among the highest in evaluating notability for the reasons explained in
WP:NCORP. NCORP is the criteria of the English language Wikipedia and it isn't necessarily comparable with other language versions nor is there a reciprocity rule that allows presence in other language Wikipedia to be used as a presumption of notability. There's no doubt that sources present in German and Italian versions are meaningless for establishing notability here. The order of establishment, the absolute size, the relative size within arbitrarily subdivided sector asserted by Wikipedia editors don't affect the notability. It requires multiple,
deep, totally independent secondary coverage in
widely circulated general interest publication to anchor down the notability foundation which the sources currently present do not support. Presence of
other stuff that fails notability don't provide justification for articles nominated for deletion.
Graywalls (
talk) 00:43, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
- comment - you can leave that to the voters to decide thank you. the nom says no legit source used - it didn't take me long to find more than a couple independent sources. please check if the subject can be helped before nominating.
Grmike (
talk) 16:12, 24 May 2020 (UTC)grmike
- comment - the nominator is guilty of Wikipedia:Overzealous deletion#Lack_of_familiarity_with_the_subject and Wikipedia:Overzealous_deletion#Article_quality Grmike ( talk) 22:41, 25 May 2020 (UTC)grmike
- comment - you can leave that to the voters to decide thank you. the nom says no legit source used - it didn't take me long to find more than a couple independent sources. please check if the subject can be helped before nominating.
Grmike (
talk) 16:12, 24 May 2020 (UTC)grmike
- addressing the series of comments above The notability standards that apply to organizations and companies are among the highest in evaluating notability for the reasons explained in
WP:NCORP. NCORP is the criteria of the English language Wikipedia and it isn't necessarily comparable with other language versions nor is there a reciprocity rule that allows presence in other language Wikipedia to be used as a presumption of notability. There's no doubt that sources present in German and Italian versions are meaningless for establishing notability here. The order of establishment, the absolute size, the relative size within arbitrarily subdivided sector asserted by Wikipedia editors don't affect the notability. It requires multiple,
deep, totally independent secondary coverage in
widely circulated general interest publication to anchor down the notability foundation which the sources currently present do not support. Presence of
other stuff that fails notability don't provide justification for articles nominated for deletion.
Graywalls (
talk) 00:43, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
- Keep The notability is based on the existence of sources, not the current state of sourcing in the article. I don't believe that there aren't any sources that prove that one of the 60th largest companies in France is notable. I agree with User:grmike. Dwaro ( talk) 11:00, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
DeleteChanged to Keep, I'm happy that there are (at least) two references that meet the criteria for notability. Good work by Dwaro and Qwertz1894 in particular.This is not the first time I've come across a quoted company where I am unable to locate any analyst reports or other references that meet the criteria for establishing notability and probably won't be the last. References are a mixture of interviews with execs or entirely based on company announcements. Topic fails GNG/NCORP. HighKing ++ 20:09, 27 May 2020 (UTC)HighKing ++ 11:46, 2 June 2020 (UTC)- comment maybe that's because they're in French and you are not looking hard enough. try translating the pages.
Grmike (
talk) 03:35, 29 May 2020 (UTC)grmike
- Nope, and if you were a regular at AfD you'd know that. I usually get good translations from Google, I don't shrug and say "It's all Greek to me", I put in the leg work. Also, you do realise that you don't need to keep appending "grmike" to all your posts after you put in the 4 ~'s? HighKing ++ 11:46, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
- comment maybe that's because they're in French and you are not looking hard enough. try translating the pages.
Grmike (
talk) 03:35, 29 May 2020 (UTC)grmike
- Keep Hi guys, coming from the German Wiki where we have clear quantifiable hurdles for notability criteria such as number of employees, revenue and stock listing (all of which are fulfilled by the company), I find it quite strange that the notability is being discussed here. If you only rely on significant media coverage, you might want to take some of these into account: [12] [13] [14] [15] [16]. These articles are mainly behind paywalls which sadly is a main problem with proofing notability solely by media´s reception. Opposed to HighKing I do see some media articles in the initial Wiki article which are neither sole interviews nor company announcements ( [17] [18] [19]). Why are these sources being ignored? Best regards.-- Qwertz1894 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:34, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
- PS: I very much doubt that Le Figaro or The Telegraph are non-independent publishers let alone an example for churnalism.--
Qwertz1894 (
talk) 15:59, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
- @ Qwertz1894:, # of employees, stock listing and revenue are not part of the criteria for the en.wikipedia, the English language Wikipedia and some of the sources you provided, such as the announcement of the sale of corporate headquarters is arguably routine coverage. The SPGlobal one would be what would be DEPENDENT secondary. Businesswire is PRESS RELEASE distribution, thus not independent secondary. The telegraph one, I'm not so certain. Perhaps @ HighKing: could comment on that article. Graywalls ( talk) 16:48, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
- Comment The criteria for notability on the English language Wikipedia is different than German Wiki so the notability criteria there has no bearing on the criteria here. You should also take a read of
WP:ORGIND in particular to understand the interpretation of "Independent" - it doesn't just mean that the "publisher" is independent from the topic company (if I had 2c for every time I've seen this ...) but that the content of the reference must include "Independent Content" i.e. must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. You've mentioned some references where you question why I rejected them based on our policies and guidelines.
This from LeFigaro is based on a company announcement (says it in the lede) with no indications of any independent content.
This from S&P Global is headlined "Icade reveals plans..." and again, no indications of any independent content.
This from The Telegraph is based on information provided by Alex Illingworth, co-manager of the Mid Wynd investment trust
which is a shareholder
in Icade so not unaffiliated nor Independent. Looking at the new references you've provided, every single one is based on company announcements and none meet the criteria on the English language Wikipedia for establishing notability as they all fail
WP:ORGIND.
HighKing
++ 16:52, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
- Comment I know, I have read
WP:ORG and I know that you have to comply with it. I only see a problem in defining routine coverage. If one needs several media articles with a profound analysis of the company and its financial and organizational structure, you can start to delete a great portion of all Wiki articles about mid cap or even large cap companies. That definition also rules out references like this
[20] (which only talks about Icade in one short paragraph but its still more than one "single-sentence mention"). What would be non-routine coverage?--
Qwertz1894 (
talk) 17:31, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
- Comment you are exactly right. and whole sections are being deleted as a result of bludgeoning the subjects. if a REIT makes the Forbes 2000 list, runs vast portions of downtown Paris, starts Europe's first healthcare reit, is one of the 60 biggest companies in france, and builds the first fully solar powered eco building in paris, it is nowhere near non-notable. impossible ! Grmike ( talk) 03:27, 29 May 2020 (UTC)grmike
- Comment
Qwertz1894, the best references are those where an article discusses the company in depth, with analysis/commentary/etc clearly provided by the journalist and not simply regurgitating company announcements (churnalism). Analyst reports are acceptable for example. Lots of companies have articles written about them because they make announcements or their executives are interviewed and these are not acceptable. I agree with you that a great portion of all Wiki articles about companies/organizations fail the requirements - the evidence from AfD is that 80% or more articles (on companies/organizations/etc) end up being deleted which goes to prove ... something, I don't know, but in my opinion it shows about how most companies use PR a lot and how most newspapers/magazines are more interested in filling up column inches that providing independent commentary and analysis. The bar is set intentionally high because to not do so, we end up with companies trying to use Wikipedia as a platform for promotion or credibility which is not its role. If a company is truly notable, somebody, somewhere, will write about it and provide their own analysis/opinion/etc.
HighKing
++ 18:29, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
- comment - I completely disagree with highking. I doubt very much that Wikipedia was created on these kinds of principles. purging Wikipedia of subjects that are undoubtedly notable is not in keeping with assume good faith. highking is fresh off of
WP:BLUD another
AFD. as long as he's not called out for it he will get away with it again.
Grmike (
talk) 03:19, 29 May 2020 (UTC)grmike
- Two points. First, I realise that you are a little sore because one of your articles (the Mr. Greek one above) was deleted and that the deletion review isn't going your way. I've created many articles myself and I understand the utter frustration involved if someone questions notability and the article is subsequently deleted. Hopefully you won't be put off from creating many more articles and if you ever want me to check any references you might have questions about, fire ahead on my Talk page, glad to help if I can. The Deletion Review shows that many editors have endorsed not only the decision to delete but also the analysis of the sources. It is also noteworthy that one editor pointed out that your accusations of BLUD are completely off the mark and went further to point out that the only example of BLUD on show is your conduct, not mine. Second point, this AfD process is concerned with Icade. Let's stick to this topic. If you've any issues with guidelines or policies, you can open a question on that Talk page. If you want to express your displeasure at my (and others) interpretation of our policies/guidelines, this isn't the place to do it. HighKing ++ 14:09, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
- Comment - Icade is three times bigger than Crombie REIT. in fact it is even larger than its parent company. it is nonsensical to even consider this for deletion. Grmike ( talk) 03:43, 29 May 2020 (UTC)grmike
- comment - I completely disagree with highking. I doubt very much that Wikipedia was created on these kinds of principles. purging Wikipedia of subjects that are undoubtedly notable is not in keeping with assume good faith. highking is fresh off of
WP:BLUD another
AFD. as long as he's not called out for it he will get away with it again.
Grmike (
talk) 03:19, 29 May 2020 (UTC)grmike
- Comment I know, I have read
WP:ORG and I know that you have to comply with it. I only see a problem in defining routine coverage. If one needs several media articles with a profound analysis of the company and its financial and organizational structure, you can start to delete a great portion of all Wiki articles about mid cap or even large cap companies. That definition also rules out references like this
[20] (which only talks about Icade in one short paragraph but its still more than one "single-sentence mention"). What would be non-routine coverage?--
Qwertz1894 (
talk) 17:31, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Java Hurricane 09:13, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Java Hurricane 09:13, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
- Comment I still found some sources which should comply with the rules: [21] Publishing by two independent researchers about the history of CDCs real estate business (especially SCIC / Icade); [22] by Jean-Pierre Schaefer (worked for the CDC in the past but also lectures at CNFPT); [23] and [24] could be seen as routine coverage but still complies with all aspects of WP:GNG; [25] WP:ILLCON but still fulfilling WP:SIRS; [26] published by the Senate.-- Qwertz1894 ( talk) 14:38, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
- Comment This document published in 1993 for the Revue D'Economie Financiere is co-authored by Bruno George who worked for CDC (Icade's parent company) - fails ORGIND. This profile piece is written by Jean-Pierre Schaefer who worked in CDC (Icade's parent company) - fails ORGIND. This from LesEchos is entirely based on the company announcement of the name change to ICAD - fails ORGIND. This from LeMonde dated in 1967 obviously deals with the parent company and not Icade which wasn't formed at that point in time - fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Finally this from liberation.fr discusses a possible scandal involving SCIC and doesn't mention Icade - fails CORPDEPTH. None of those references meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing ++ 20:40, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
- Comment Obviously I´m not a great supporter of a literal interpretation of WP:ORG or any other rule or guideline in Wikipedia. However, if you do that, George and Schaefer would still not collide with ORGIND. According to ORGIND active company personnel and other parties that have something, financially or otherwise, to gain or lose are NOT independent... George and Schaefer are not currently working for CDC or Icade and proofing a further financial connection might be near to impossible. It´s definetly worth discussing whether former employees of a state-owned enterprise have a great benefit out of such actions. Furthermore it is not necessary for an article to discuss "Icade" as long as they deal with "SCIC". SCIC was simply renamed Icade in 2003. It´s the same corporate entity.-- Qwertz1894 ( talk) 23:43, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
- Comment My vote is still keep. I could find significant, independent and reliable coverage in the book "The Making of Grand Paris: Metropolitan Urbanism in the Twenty-First Century". Dwaro ( talk) 13:13, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
- @ Dwaro:, please provide the ISBN and the range of pages that are extensively devoted to Icade so that WP:ORGDEPTH and independence and other matters can be verified. Graywalls ( talk) 19:15, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
- Comment - My vote is still speedy keep. User:Qwertz1894 sums the argument up nicely. Rather than looking to improve an article on a very large business with a long standing history that has had a profound effect on Paris's modern architecture the nominator seems to be trying too hard to invalidate notability. where is the assume good faith ? I believe that rescuing articles should always be the top priority. if this isn't bludgeoning then what is ? Grmike ( talk) 08:12, 2 June 2020 (UTC)grmike
- Dwaro, Graywalls, ISBN-10: 0262034697, ISBN-13: 978-0262034692, published by The MIT Press. Pages 213 and 214 contain passages that mention Icade. Page 213 says that Icade is the leading commerical real estate company for offices and business parks in the Ile-de-France and a private subsidiary of the Caisse des Depots et Consignations and is the first French REIT to devlop a strategy and appoint management to deal specifically with Grand Paris. It mentions that the company has millions of square meters of holdings and investments and is a signatory to five CDTs. In my opinion, this reference meets the criteria for establishing notability. Based on this reference and this profile piece, I believe there are now sufficient references to support notability, I've changed my !vote to reflect this. HighKing ++ 11:46, 2 June 2020 (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.