Talk:Syngenta Group

Replacing with a redirect

Dear colleague @KoA: I do not understand the arguments behind replacing the article on Syngenta Group with a redirect. In both discussions on the subject that I know (Talk:Syngenta#Requested move 9 July 2021 and Talk:Syngenta#Separating pages) participants clearly stated that a separate Syngenta Group article is desired assuming good sources exist. I have added one such source that in details describes both Syngenta Group and Syngenta ([1]). This document clearly separates the two entities (title of one of the sections is "Financials and profile – Syngenta AG and Syngenta Group") and describes them in reasonable detail. As stated in these discussions, common sense is also on the side of two separate articles, as Syngenta Group assets are not limited to two branches forming Syngenta AG. The only references to WP:INHERIT (that you mentioned in the comment to the deletion of text) that I could find were (underlining is mine):

• "Per the consensus, either we have to go for small mention of Syngenta group here in its own section (which is perfectly fine, Adama doesn't need mention here), or start a new page and establish notability for Syngenta Group on it's own without WP:INHERIT issues."
• (yours) "Anything about Syngenta Group likely needs to be written from scratch, otherwise it seems like WP:INHERIT"
• "Good point on the WP:INHERIT. Probably best just to add a separate paragraph to this article about Syngenta Group. Right now all I can find in RSs is launch date, comprising companies, a new logo (which is already in this article - probably a mistake) and a press release about an IPO on China's STAR stock exchange. That doesn't seem enough to create, or justify, a separate article."

Obviously in 2021 there was a lack of sources about the group. Since then the situation clearly have changed (not surprising given the group being the largest company in the world in the plant protection market). I have added one such very detailed source, commissioned by a non-profit. While not a peer-reviewed publication, this one is clearly of good quality and is most definitely non-flattering. If you would like to see more sources or have a quality bar for these future sources to clear, just let me know (for the avoidance of doubt, I did not create the article, just added the source and expanded the stub). I also happen not to have any connections to the group or the industry, and even any knowledge about Syngenta prior to stumbling upon the article during WP:NPP. Thank you in advance! Викидим (talk) 17:01, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

• Pinging colleagues from the previous discussions: @JD at Syngenta Group:, @Jtrevor99:, @Invasive Spices:, @KoA:, @No such user:, @162 etc.:. The text of the article prior to the replacement with a redirect can be found at User:Викидим/Syngenta Group. --Викидим (talk) 17:08, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

  The challenge related to that discussion prior is that the WP:NOTABILITY of Syngenta Group itself has to be established when most of what is tied to any notability is really what's over at Syngenta, and that's where INHERIT comes into play.

  When it comes to Syngenta Group, it's a broad umbrella that really does not get significant mention in it's own right, including the sources that were recently added. Merely existing or owning a major company doesn't inherently make the umbrella group notable. Sources merely mentioning it generally aren't enough considering that confounding factor, so that's why the actual activities are handled over at Syngenta with brief mention of the ownership structure (and redirect from here to that page). If it ever does get to that point of standalone notability, it's worth discussing, but it doesn't seem like anything has really changed in the last few years in that regard. KoA (talk) 18:26, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

  Owning three large companies IMHO makes an owner distinct from all three of them, placing information about it into a section of an article that describes one of the controlled companies, with a similar name, will definitely confuse a reader (it did initially confuse me for sure, the Syngenta article really should be renamed into Syngenta AG). A planned IPO predictably generated plenty of talk about the group as a whole while, as far as I can tell, IPO is related to the group, not Syngenta AG. Finding paragraph-size discussions of the group in books from reputable publishers is possible: [2] (Wiley). Very high quality periodic press just as predictably kept the buzz literally for years, note the six (!) articles in Wall Street Journal alone: [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]. I think that with this amount of coverage a much smaller company would be considered passing the WP:NCORP. At this point, I rest my case. Викидим (talk) 19:07, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

  Keep in mind what is currently housed at the Syngenta page came first and is what satisfied NCORP. Syngenta group is just the umbrella that was created much later. In all of that though, notice how even your sources just refer to it as Syngenta. There's a lot of confounding at play that's redundant when mentioning Syngenta Group, which is why there's some needle threading going on here in assessing where significant coverage really lies. Yes sources exist that use the words Syngenta Group, but a closer look in the context of NCORP doesn't make it's own notability quite so apparent. That's in large part why the redirect was handled how it was, and nothing has really changed in the past few years with respect to titling context either on that.

  Usually when you have a major company page, but a run of the mill holding group, that ownership just gets mentioned at the company page like is currently done at the Syngenta page. KoA (talk) 00:21, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

  I disagree with you: for major conglomerates we routinely have separate pages for the holding group, cf. Alphabet Inc. vs. Google, Meta Platforms vs. Facebook, etc., etc. Викидим (talk) 00:29, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

  WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS would apply in that case, but those holding groups are well-known ones in terms of significant coverage that have satisfied NCORP and overcome INHERIT issues that also had to be navigated there. The take home is that this example is not so clean cut for holding group distinction, so there's been a lot of care in having to navigate that over the years with the main article and redirects. This hasn't been an easy one for that reason. KoA (talk) 00:54, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

  I understand your position, and for expedience see no problem accepting your choice: there are WP:NODEADLINES, so the potential article about the group can be kept in the current limbo for many years until the oft-discussed and much-delayed IPO happens. Then we can return to this discussion. Викидим (talk) 02:58, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

  Hello KoA and Викидим! Thanks for sharing your opinion. I still believe that a page for the Syngenta Group would be very useful, as Syngenta primarily comprises the Crop Protection and Seeds divisions. When the press reports on "Syngenta", they almost always mean "Syngenta Group" (with all divisios, including Adama).

  Due to my conflict of interest, I am staying out of the discussion and respect any decision. However, we would like to point out that Syngenta Group has decided to withdraw its application for an initial public offering on the main board of the Shanghai Stock Exchange. In many discussions, the IPO was seen as an indication of notability.

  Thanks, JD at Syngenta Group (talk) 11:43, 10 April 2024 (UTC)