Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Apical Group

Apical Group

[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)

Fails WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:ORGIND and WP:SIGCOV scope_creep^Talk 10:52, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:03, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:03, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:03, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment it's a pretty bad article as it stands. They should be notable ... have they, in fact, been noted though? - David Gerard (talk) 11:22, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Its good to see an administrator join the discussion so early. I will comment at the day when I arrive back, but it is more than this article. It seems to be a whole bunch of paid editors pushing this man Sukanto Tanoto companies i.e. Royal Golden Eagle who seems from the evidence from WWF and Greenpeace to be one of the worst deforestation companies in Indonesia, and due to that every article related to that main company seems to be full of promotion. And this included forestry action groups that seem to single it out. I have also sent this to Afd on a separate page Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sateri which seems to be in a similar situation. Also it seems these group of companies on Wikipedia seem to have a whole bunch of paid editor coming to add to the promotion on a regular basis, I think to counter the bad press they are getting elsewhere. So we seem to be used as platform for promotion and I am looking for a discussion around this. scope_creep^Talk 11:42, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have also sent this to Afd: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bracell Limited. scope_creep^Talk 14:50, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I would respectfully disagree with "promotional" material, as edits are based on reported facts. The language has also been objective. I believe the contention here is the objectivity of "promotion". There's also no greenwashing/whitewashing, as no other contrarian facts were edited or deleted; neither were your deletions disputed. Perhaps we can look at each article more objectively and build up the citation-supported facts. I agree primary references should be removed, and that promotional language be taken out. Issues raised by WWF and Greenpeace have been long addressed and actions have documented in the media, unless the intent here is to keep a particular presentation of facts that is locked in time on Wikipedia, but I hope that is not the intent. Disclosures have been made, and I hope that will not prejudice how we ground our discussion in the merits and material facts of each page. A "whole bunch of paid editors" is very flattering, but I wish there was. Thanks HawkEggz (talk) 04:48, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]