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. PhilKnight (talk) 19:13, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

MHG Systems[edit]

MHG Systems (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). The company has not been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. There is no significant coverage beyond routine announcements, press releases, self-published materials and the like. Delete. Edcolins (talk) 17:08, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I had a look at the references provided, and I am still not convinced that they are sufficient for showing that the company is notable under WP:CORP (and in particular WP:PSTS). In particular:
  1. This document [1] on the Canadian Bioenergy Association web site [2] is self-published, i.e. not independent from the subject.
  2. This press release [3] on the African Biofuel and Renewable Energy Fund (ABREF) web site [4] is also self-published. It also appears that this organisation or fund is not independent from MHG Systems (see [5]: "Partnership with MGH Systems").
  3. This page [6] (Erasmus for Young Entrepreneurs) primarily relates to a EU sponsored exchange, not to the company itself.
  4. This page [7] on the Waste-to-Energy Research and Technology Council (WtERT) web site is closer to what it is needed as evidence for notability, but this is only a single source, the depth of coverage is not substantial, and the media audience is rather limited.
  5. This press release [8] (Finnish Bioenergy association) is also self-published.
Thus, in my opinion, the company fails WP:CORP. Please take the time to read also WP:COI as this may apply to you. Thank you. --Edcolins (talk) 11:38, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reply regarding the references

Dear Edcolins. I would disagree with you about "self published" nature of the references, as in none of the links you mentioned, there is an opportunity to self publish an article. At least we have agreed that one page counts as a notable source:

  1. This page [9] on the Waste-to-Energy Research and Technology Council (WtERT).

Abref - an organization that unfortunately don't have a separate wikipedia page, is an fund, developed by African countries that are trying to solve the energy problems in the black continent. This is a first initiative of such level when African countries them-self form a fund to build their own future economy, instead of getting funds from EU countries. I think this kind of organization could be also displayed in the wikipedia, as many others, but I just see a strange attitude from the respected members - you nominate the article for deletion two weeks after it was published, without letting it to develop, or become of higher quality. In this situation, I will really think twice before adding anything to the wikipedia again! So, do you really see this information as self published? Isn't the fund covering several African countries not a reliable/notable source?

  1. This press release [10] on the African Biofuel and Renewable Energy Fund (ABREF) web site [11] is also self-published. It also appears that this organisation or fund is not independent from MHG Systems (see [12]: "Partnership with MGH Systems").

I would totally disagree with you about the self published nature of report in Canadian Bioenergy Association! This organization is a powerful and non profit organization that promotes the Clean energy and supports efforts to reduce CO2 emissions in Canada. Canada is the 3rd largest country in the world in terms of total forest area, and this organization does has some influence worldwide. They are not an article publishing service, but an organization that is trying to make this world better by promotion of green technologies.

This page [13] (Erasmus for Young Entrepreneurs) The article covers both topics, the exchange program and the company. The company is well described there, that's why I added it as a reference. This is a respected international organization, funded by a EU.

I would continue. Doesn't Finnish Bioenergy association also count as a respected source? I think,that it would be wise to invite someone, who is familiar with bioenergy to this discussion, so we could hear his opinion about notability of sources. Bioenergy is a young industry, but it is growing quickly, addressing such problems as CO2 emissions, development and employment in rural areas etc. This is a highly neutral and non-advertising article about a company that is operating in this socially responsible area. I do think that wikipedia users should promote such ideas, with any means they have. I think, with all the regulations that are pointed out, the main purpose of wikipedia is forgotten .


Rpisarenko (talk) 15:26, 7 January 2011 (UTC) (tho this section was 'signed' by Rpisarenko it was actually added by — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.197.11.205 (talk • contribs) at this timestamp. Syrthiss (talk) 17:14, 13 January 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan Talk Contributions 06:55, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have examined Wikipedia:DE and find no references there to "rambling", "poorly-formatted discourses", or "extraneous section breaks". FYI, Unscintillating (talk)
  1. MHG Systems is listed by Bloomberg BusinessWeek.
  2. The first paragraph of this CBM page appears to be a secondary-source description of MHG Systems.

    The CBM About Us page states, "Canadian Biomass magazine is an Annex Publishing & Printing Inc. publication."  This Bloomberg Businessweek report shows that Annex Publishing & Printing Inc. is in Ontario, Canada.  Therefore I have reason to believe that CBM is an independent third-party fact-checking source.

  3. The Penza Oblast in Volga, Russia has 1.3 million people.  A government press release here, shows that the Governor of the Oblast met with MHG Systems.
  4. The Mikkeli University Consortium, who are presumably independent educators, lists MHG Systems here.
When the initial author created this article on December 29, he included a note on the Talk page asking for help with neutrality, and there is no current reason to doubt the sincerity of this request.  See also WP:BITE.
I vote for an administrative dismissal rather than a keep or delete decision.  I don't think I can make a good Keep/Delete decision at this time, but I also think it is wrong to delete this article before it is possible to make a good decision.  I think work should proceed, including adding Citation-needed templates, knowing that this article could come back to AfD.  Thank you, Unscintillating (talk) 10:02, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your note. Let me reply. You write "When the initial author created this article on December 29, he included a note on the Talk page asking for help with neutrality".. Right, but neutrality has nothing to do with notability. The December 29 note is fine, but it doesn't bear any weight on the current debate. I have no doubt that the article can be written from a neutral point of view, but I don't think the company is notable enough and I don't think this can be currently cured (I am not excluding that the company may become notable in the future, of course).
You listed four references:
  • The first one (Bloomberg) is an entry in a business directory. You can most probably pay to get your firm listed in there.
  • The second one (Canadian Biomass) is a press release which does not seem to be independent from the subject. Anyone can submit press releases for free there, see [14].
  • The third and fourth ones only contain passing references to the company, and do not amount to substantial coverage necessary to establish notability.
Non-notable company IMHO, still. --Edcolins (talk) 12:00, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Edcolins, may be some of the links that article is based on are not notable enough, but, from my point of view the company itself is notable enough to have an independent article in Wikipedia.
  • As far as I understand, we have both agreed that [15] on the Waste-to-Energy Research and Technology Council (WtERT) is notable enough, especially considering the Audience of its readers(Renewable energy experts).
  • Please also review Finnvera article, that is a PDF in Finnish language [16]. In general, if you search google.fi "mhg systems veraventure", you will find a lot of local coverage.
  • MHG Systems in Mikkeli local newspaper [17]
  • Information published in Mikkeli University of applied sciences web site [18]
I could go on, posting the links about MHG Systems that are not used in the wikipedia page. I am certain that there is enough regional and international coverage for company to be notable under WP:CORP, there are enough independent links for the article to be improved. Please use Google.fito research more information about the company in Finnish language. Please keep in mind all the other Russian, Chinese, Canadian, EU links - I think all together they indeed justify the existence of MHG Systems page. Rpisarenko (talk) 15:37, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Continuation_of_discussionBackLink:  [discussion continues at [Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/MHG Systems#Continuation_of_discussion]] [inserted by Unscintillating (talk) 05:07, 26 January 2011 (UTC)}[reply]
I am afraid we have not both agreed that this link would be sufficient to establish notably. That's not what I wrote and it appears that you have misunderstood my point. IMHO, the depth of coverage is not substantial and the media audience is rather limited. --Edcolins (talk) 20:20, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think that there has been misunderstanding in that you have used the words "self-published" and identified them with a non-policy definition, and not followed up with clarification.  Regarding my own comments, your points stand refuted by the force of reason with no response.  This then puzzles me the hint in your last post that there is still a question about overall notability.  Perhaps you can provide an operational definition for "limited media audience", but what about a one-page ad paid for in part by the United Nations and the European Union and distributed to 1.8 million business executives and customers who buy the Global print edition of the Wall Street Journal?  Thanks, Unscintillating (talk) 02:08, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Edcolins, I'm new to these debates, can you explain why Hrafn objected to people posting on this page, but you have never responded to my comments on the discussion page? Unscintillating (talk) 06:02, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and the Wikipedia article was rapidly discovered in three blogs:
Nonetheless, in a discussion of WP:Notability, these are [ad hominem] points and carry no weight.
rpisarenko earlier provided in the MHG Systems article a reference to a Bachelor's thesis written by Ruslan Pisarenko published by Mikkeli University of Applied Sciences.  The url is http://publications.theseus.fi/handle/10024/15811, click on "In English" to proceed.  In my opinion the Introduction of this thesis is the work of someone that Wikipedia wants to encourage to be an editor here. Unscintillating (talk) 00:32, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are right, that an author may have a conflict of interest is immaterial to the topic notability. Likewise, that the author of the thesis you mentioned is someone that you want "to encourage to be an editor here" is also immaterial for assessing whether to keep the article. I assume that you are not suggesting that we should keep the article only to encourage the author to be an editor on Wikipedia. That would look like an inverse ad hominem argument.
Anyway, let's try to reach a consensus and be WP:NICE to each other. Am I oversimplifying your position when writing that you consider this reference (canadianbiomassmagazine.ca) to be sufficient to establish notability? Otherwise, could you summarize your position please? This may also help others to join the discussion. Thanks.
IMO, if not "purely self-published", the press release (canadianbiomassmagazine.ca) largely amounts to a self-published source as it has been only slightly modified by the magazine's editors. The press release is not independent from the subject because its publication has been triggered by the subject. Without the company asking for its publication, the press release wouldn't have been published. In that sense, the company is not a topic which has been noticed by independent sources ("Wikipedia covers notable topics—those that have been "noticed" to a significant degree by independent sources." See Wikipedia:Notability "This page in a nutshell:") --Edcolins (talk) 22:06, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Edcolins, what I have said about the canadianbiomass news report is on the discussion page at [Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/MHG Systems#Canadian Biomass is independent national media for the biomass industry].  I don't find it surprising that a press release would be used to write a news article.  I don't have much to add to the position that I have already stated.  Do you still reject Bloomberg Businessweek as authoritative?  Where does this Bloomberg report fit within Notability policy?  I think you are trying to improve the encyclopedia with the tools that you have. Unscintillating (talk) 05:07, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As I already wrote above, I am afraid the Bloomberg link is a mere entry in a business directory. It does not provide evidence that the topic has been noticed by independent, secondary sources.--Edcolins (talk) 15:07, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:13, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quantpole, how do you explain the two "strong indications of notability" that I have documented under policy?  If this company is not notable, how is it that they have been noticed by multiple agencies of the State of Finland, an agency of the European Union, a fund of the fifteen-nation ECOWAS headquartered in Togo, and a marketing firm in London sponsored by the United Nations to promote a conference that had the attention of President Obama?  Now, I'm not saying that 1.8 million ads in the Global Wall Street Journal sent to world business leaders make a company notable, what I'm looking at is the fact that they were noticed by the marketing firm.  Would you think that this was a highly political decision to promote a non-notable green company?  Unscintillating (talk) 06:02, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because mountains of paperwork is the lifeblood of any bureaucracy. It is an obvious corollary that much of the contents of said mountains is trivial detail. And PR firms are infamous for promoting photogenic trivia at the expense of substance. If we believed PR firms then we'd believe that the Spice Girls or the Beckhams are more important than the British government. HrafnTalkStalk(P) :::*07:46, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hrafn, you make good points about bureaucratic excess, and PR agency biases.  The decision by the [ABREF] fund to post a private company's press release I don't think is explained as the trivial detail of a 15-nation bureaucracy.  I have also looked at [reusable.pdf].  MHG seems to have been included to represent the hope in the world of leading-edge technology to provide renewable energy, not to promote MHG.  I'm thinking that for a controversial conference, a PR bias would be that MHG be "non-controversial", rather than "non-notable".  Without trying to cite policy, I'd say that having been selected for this bit-part on a world-wide stage is a strong indication of notability.  How do you analyze the two "strong indications of notability" under policy that I have documented?  Unscintillating (talk) 05:07, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unscintillating: I have no idea what you mean by your purported "two 'strong indications of notability' under policy" -- but given the excessive number and excessive verbosity (starting with "Administrative dismissal of nomination"=WP:Complete bollocks, given that this AfD does not meet any of the criteria of WP:SPEEDYKEEP) of your posts, I can easily see why I might have missed it. WP:TLDNR would appear to apply -- you have really written too much on this AfD to have any reasonable expectation that it will all be read (let alone that any single part of it will be identifiable from your less-than-descriptive description). HrafnTalkStalk(P) 12:13, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hrafn, search for "strong indication of notability" on the Discussion page.  Unscintillating (talk) 21:02, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • This previous post provides support for the position that this AfD should be closed without a decision.  The post does not interpret the multiple "strong indications of notability" that the administrators must consider, and leaves work to the administrators that could have been partially done. Unscintillating (talk) 21:02, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It appears that Unscintillating-the-Longwinded is referring to WT:Articles for deletion/MHG Systems#My "note" (so why didn't (s)he just say so in the first place?) -- which is neither a "strong indication of notability" nor based upon "policy" (or guidelines). (i) The Bloomberg entry is not "significant coverage" -- it is a single paragraph. (ii) As Edcolins points out, there is good reason to suspect that it may not be "independent of the subject" (as it may be a paid listing, and may even have been drafted by the company itself). (iii) The claim "Just because the only relevant company content is the name of the company does not make this citation less than substantial and notable" is directly contradicted both by WP:Notability's definition of "significant coverage" and by common sense. The signal to noise ratio on these claims is sufficiently low that they make no difference to my previously expressed opinions. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 07:05, 30 January 2011 (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.
  1. ^ Diderot, Denis and d'Alembert, Jean le Rond Encyclopédie. University of Michigan Library:Scholarly Publishing Office and DLXS. Retrieved on: November 17, 2007
More