User talk:D51386/Hope Construction Materials
Re-creation of article
I came to this company from Amit Bhatia's page where there is a reference to his being the Chairman of this company. I put up a note on that page before finding this page (previously deleted version) that was removed in April by Fumitol.
This seems extremely sensible given that the page appears to have been created by Hope Construction Materials itself (see the edit history). Anyway, I looked into the company further and I believe that it's size does justify a page.
One concern: the company was founded in 2013 and therefore there is not the depth of sources that can be found on other companies. I have tried to use a diverse array of sources that are mostly drawn from places not connected with the company. However, I think that the best reference to what the company does can be found in it's own About Us section. I mention this as I know it was a concern raised by Fumitol and latterly Peridon on June 20th.
- You can refer to the company site to back up bits of info, but it cannot be used to show notability. It's not an independent reliable source. Definitely not independent, and a lot of thjem are less than reliable anyway... Peridon (talk) 18:50, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for your input Peridon; that makes sense. I've been through enough company websites to know that some can be capable of a lot more than bending the truth. I'll have another look at sources and see if there isn't anything a bit firmer out there. D51386 (talk) 10:03, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
- Peridon, I have changed the wording of the introduction to reflect the company's growth as opposed to its current size (for which I can find no other good reference than on the company's own website). However, as far as growth is concerned, I believe the piece in the Builders' Merchant News is satisfactory. Reading over the rest of the piece, I can see no other points of potential bias, but am happy to be guided. Thanks for your input.D51386 (talk) 10:40, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
Hello, D! User:Peridon asked me to take a look at your article since he is going to be unavailable for a while. There is still a concern that most of the references are self-referential. However, you do have two references (The Independent and Reuters) that count as independent reliable sources so that is good. Reuters says the company has "one of the largest cement plants in Britain" which you should add to the article, cited to the source, since it will help to establish notability. You might also want to add to the article the information from Builder's Merchants News that it is UK’s first construction firm to join the World Economic Forum’s Global Growth Companies (GGC) community and that it is one of just two European construction firms to show it meets membership criteria. (I'm quoting from the article; you should use your own words.) Again, that might help establish notability. I could not find any other sources in a brief search; part of the problem is that the names are so generic they bring up a lot of false results.
One other issue is that the makeup of the company is not clear from the lead sentence: is it one company with two divisions, or two companies operating under a single trading name? I suggest you clarify that.
My own opinion is that the article has enough sources now to be created, but its notability is borderline. You should be aware that even if it passed at Articles for Creation, someone still might nominate it for deletion, and although I would personally !vote "keep" it could wind up getting deleted by community consensus. One thing you might do is to wait a while before resubmitting this article; the passage of time might bring additional coverage from independent reliable sources to make notability clearer. --MelanieN (talk) 14:18, 9 August 2013 (UTC)