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. Cirt (talk) 13:49, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Global Risk Management (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Contested PROD. Fails WP:COMPANY: a Google News search reveals no hits on this company, as such it does not have sufficient coverage to pass WP:COMPANY RP459 (talk) 00:00, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:32, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To quote wikipedia itself, "neutrality trumps popularity." As mentioned previously, the Google News search fails to reveal a lot of trade media sources that are subscription-based (particularly common in the maritime business). A regular Google web search reveals a number of these in regards to the company in question. Google News search also omits non-English language news items about this company -- which is, after all, based in Denmark.

"Raw "hit" (search result) count is a very crude measure of importance. Some unimportant subjects have many "hits", some notable ones have few or none..." from [the Search Engline Test page]

In order to establish notability, I've continued to add more "Notes" to the page. It now includes verifiable sources such as Denmark's national news agency, several national newspapers, and non-subscription trade media websites in English and Danish. I've chosen a spread of dates, from 2006 to today (Bunker Index is one of several daily online bunker sites that carry Global Risk Management oil price assessments. Unfortunately, the others are subscription based).

A word about the Danish sources: A number of the sources I've included are articles by national newspapers using Global Risk Management for quotes and analysis on shifts in the oil price. I think that adds even more weight to the notability of the company. If in doubt, perhaps it might be useful to call in a Scandinavian editor to verify the notability of the Danish sources.

A word about procedure: Shouldn't there have been some form of discussion about the reasons for my dePROD (I think that's the right term) before referral to a general discussion? The debate seems to be moving rather quickly towards "userfying" the article without anybody discussing the validity of my article sources and notability. Can we discuss notability beyond Google News search results?

I'm a newcomer to this, so could somebody give me feedback to this reply i.e. is it posted in the right place, and in the right manner.

Thanks. Dkeditor (talk) 11:16, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Should I also add a statement to support the article's inclusion on Wikipedia's public pages? If so, here goes.

This company passes WP:COMPANY as it is "the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources", as reflected on the Global Risk Management page. Hope that helps.

Thanks. Dkeditor (talk) 12:07, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The above was posted also to my user page here and I replied to it there prior to noticing that it was here also. FYI I was only replying to the comment with regards to procedure and why I sent this to AFD. RP459 (talk) 13:59, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This is a fuel price risk management business - in other words, it's unlikely that anyone not needing the services of such a business would have any reason to have heard of it. References supplied are either press releases announcing the opening of office, or general articles about fuel prices that do not have this business as their chief subject. As such it fails the organizations notability guideline, and probably does not have a showing of minimal importance. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:03, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Thanks Smerdis for showing an interest and giving your opinion. I think your argument for deletion can be divided into two parts. The first is inherent obscurity, the second is depth of coverage.

Inherent obscurity argument: With all respect, I think your first point may be based on supposition and possibly qualifies as "subjective importance" WP:UNKNOWNHERE. Following your line of logic could ultimately exclude any line of business as inherantly obscure, with the exception of potential customers. Imagine, if you will, the following argument: "This is a luxury hotel business - in other words, it's unlikely that anyone not needing the services of such a business would have any reason to have heard of it." I tend to agree with the conclusion at WP:UNKNOWNHERE: "This argument is not sufficient on its own to be persuasive in deletion discussions."

Depth of coverage argument: To your credit, you have presented another argument so as not to leave the first one on its own. And I believe you may have a valid point. If I have understood the thrust of your argument correctly, it is the depth of coverage that you find to be a problem with the sources, rather than the reliability or independence of the sources themselves. First of all, you mentioned the "References" (inline citations). and I wonder whether you may have overlooked the "Notes" (mostly links to English-language shipping sites and Danish media -- and all intended to establish notability). Let's look at both.

The references provide (1)the context of the company's ownership, (2 and 3)independent articles underlining the importance of fuel price risk strategy in the airline business (4)verification of the company's airline trade group membership, and (5)verification of the company's expansion into Asia, via the company website's news page.

The notes are divided into English and Danish sources. The English sources are (1)an international bunkering (ship fuel) website for whom Global Risk Management provides daily oil price/trend analyses, and (2 and 3)articles featuring Global Risk Management in the world's largest bunkering trade group's magazine. Both sources surely suggest credibility and recognition within the international shipping industry. The Danish sources include articles from a national broadsheet (broadly akin to Britain's The Independent) and the national business daily (broadly akin to Britain's Financial Times). Both newspapers reference Global Risk Management in articles covering oil price news. Both newspapers have a combined readership of over 300,000 in a country of 5 million.

One other note also points to the national business daily -- listing Global Risk Management as the 2nd fastest growing company in central Denmark. Remaining in the region, two other notes point to profile articles in that region's largest newspaper (circulation 60,000). There are also two notes pointing to trade publications -- the Danish maritime industry group lifting a company press release, the other a logistics trade paper profiling the company.

In conclusion, I'd argue that there is significant coverage of the company in the bunker industry (the company also provides the daily oil price analysis on the world's largest bunker/oil trading website -- the subscription-based "Bunkerworld"). I'd also argue that in Denmark, the company is notable enough for national newspapers to reference them without having to explain what they do or where they are based. I think it may be fair to assume that news editors at Danish national newspapers (as well as editors at the national news agency) are also compelled to use notable sources rather than non-notable sources. And finally, even if the depth of coverage still falls short of being "substantial", I think multiple independent sources have been cited to establish notability (as suggested in the Primary Criteria section of WP:COMPANY). Thanks. Dkeditor (talk) 00:26, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment After reading the above I am having a hard time with your assertion here in regards to this edit [1]that you are not in a WP:COI. RP459 (talk) 03:05, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks for your further input RP459, but does an assumption of bad faith suddenly belong in this discussion? "Assume good faith on the part of newcomers. They most likely want to help out. Give them a chance!"(from WP:NEWBIES). I think it would be more helpful to have a discussion about the article's compliance with WP:Company and how best to reach a consensus. To show good faith and a willingness to compromise, I've rewritten parts of the article after reading Smerdis of Tlön's comments (see above). The article now includes more inline citations as suggested in WP:BURDEN.

• Do the changes improve the article?
• Have I successfully demonstrated that Google News hits (the original reason for suggesting deletion) is an invalid argument against this company's notability (see "Notability" at WP:GOOGLETEST)?
• Does the article adequately satisfy the 5 points listed at WP:GNG
• Do you think it would help to invite more editors to join the discussion?
• Let's discuss ; )

Thanks. Dkeditor (talk) 10:41, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails WP:COMPANY. But no objections to userfying. Darrenhusted (talk) 10:51, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks Darrenhusted. Any chance of adding a bit more meat to the discussion by being a little more specific i.e. why you think it fails WP:COMPANY. Deletion guidelines suggest that we always explain our reasoning "... in a well-argued, fact-based case based upon Wikipedia policy. WP:GD "This allows others to challenge or support facts, suggest compromises or identify alternative courses of action that might not yet have been considered.". Thanks Dkeditor (talk) 12:20, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete (or Userfication if req.) - WHAT makes this company notable? Are they the larges, the first, offer a unique solution. If the Article told us that it would pass WP:COMPANY, but as it stands it does not. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 23:54, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete It is possible that the parent company is notable, " United Shipping & Trading Company (USTC), one of Denmark's largest companies " but not this division. At least one of the Danish sources talks about it only as a division of the parent [2] I am somewhat influence by the failure to find it mentioned in the Reuters & NYTimes articles proposed as references, which talk only about the general concept of airlines' hedging oil futures. I apologize for not checking all the sources, but when I check 3 on an unfamiliar subject and find all 3 of them totally unconvincing,and when its clear others are merely quoting it as a source, I've seen enough to make an evaluation. . DGG ( talk ) 00:44, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks very much Exit2DOS and DGG for your interest and useful feedback. Re uniqueness, I think you have a good point Exit2DOS. The company does offer something unique, but I think it's understated in the article - probably because I was too keen to avoid breaching the NPOV guideline. The company is unique in offering independent fuel price risk management i.e. free from the obligations imposed by large financial institutuions (standardized hedging instruments) and major oil companies (having to buy specific brands of oil). Perhaps I should have made that clearer in the article. Re sources, I think you too have a good point DGG. The Reuters and NY Times articles are only cited to give readers some background to airline fuel hedging and to supply some context. They are not there to lend notability to Global Risk Management per se. The notability (I believe) comes from Danish national and regional newspapers cited, plus the trade magazines and trade websites. Admittedly, Global Risk Management may not be the primary focus of most of the articles cited, but the fact that Danish national and regional newspapers have chosen the company to bolster their own articles strongly suggests notability -- at least in Denmark. In addition, I'd have to point out that "significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material."WP:GNG. I think the articles sourced represent more than just trivial coverage, examples of which are described in WP:COMPANY as "...newspaper articles that simply report meeting times or extended shopping hours, or the publications of telephone numbers, addresses, and directions in business directories. Thanks again for your helpful feedback. Dkeditor (talk) 07:54, 23 September 2009 (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.