Talk:Joannou & Paraskevaides

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Business and economics Portal This article is within the scope of the Business and Economics WikiProject.
Start	rated as start-Class on the assessment scale
Low	rated as low-importance on the assessment scale

	Cyprus Portal This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Cyprus; If you would like to join us, please visit the project page; if you have any questions, please consult the FAQ.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale
Mid	This article has been rated as a Mid importance article
Additional information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked

Contents 1 Arguments for including this article 1.1 1. Discussion with User:Leuko 1.2 2. Discussion with User:Eagle 101 (administrator 1) 1.3 3. Discussion with User: Fang Aili (administrator 2) 2 Fair use rationale for Image:J&P.gif

[edit] Arguments for including this article

Following the original deletion of this article, (twice), a discussion followed between a couple of administrators and another wikipedian. The article was eventually un-deleted with its original information. I have pasted the discussions and arguments below for everyone’s benefit and to avoid similar actions in the future. StephP 16:04, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 1. Discussion with User:Leuko

You have recently re-created the article J&P, which was deleted in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policies. Please do not re-create the article. If you disagree with the article's deletion, you may ask for a deletion review. Leuko 20:42, 5 October 2006 (UTC) Hi Leuko and thanks for your note.

To start with, I re-posted this article [J&P] as I had the impression that the site was never saved (I was working on it in “preview mode” and thought I had not saved it prior to logging off last night). In fact I was kicking myself as I had to do all the typing again.

Which brings me on to the more important point; which is the basis of your deletion. I can’t see the justification for this (sorry never been come across a situation like this so far) so I summarise my argument below:

J&P is a household name in the Middle East having build most of the infrastructure in several countries, information which I started outlining in my article. It has a turnover of more than £1 billion. If companies such as George Wimpey, McCarthy & Stone and Barratt Developments some of which which are miniscule in comparison are listed in Wikipedia I don’t see why larger companies that have had a more significant global impact (albeit in other regions of the world than yours) should not be featured. Please note this was not an attempt to advertise J&P as I have no affiliations to this company whatsoever. The information I included was very similar to what's posted on the companies I site above.

Regards, StephP 21:48, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry, but the reason that I tagged the article as spam (and two administrators agreed to delete it), was that the article read like advertising and had no references cited to indicate that it met the WP:CORP notability criteria. If evidence can be provided that the company meets WP:CORP, then a balanced, WP:NPOV article would be welcomed. Leuko 23:50, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi again.

The company meets no.2 of the WP:CORP criteria, if you had followed the reference I had provided in the original article (and that is why I provided it) you would have ended up here: [1]. Scroll down to no.41. Companies such as Acciona and Techint that feature on this very list (some ranking lower) have their own Wikipedia space.

If you want to verify that this source is not a mickey mouse journal itself, just read about it on wikipedia here: Engineering News-Record.

I cant see which part of WP:NPOV this article is breaching and I would be grateful if you could point it out to me. In my humble opinion the content is no different to the accepted article on say Crest Nicholson. Is it the fact that I presented it within an infobox template rather than as a narrative? Or is it the fact that this is not a British company? StephP 00:44, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 2. Discussion with User:Eagle 101 (administrator 1)

I would like to raise with you the issue of you recent deletion of my article on [J&P]. I summarize my argument below:

J&P is a household name in the Middle East having build most of the infrastructure in several countries, information which I started outlining in my article. For a country the size of Cyprus, it has had an impact similar, if not greater, to what Nokia has had for Finland. Or Royal Dutch Shell for Holland. To put this in perspective for you, the figure of 14,000 employees translates to roughly 5% of the total employed population. It has a turnover of more than £1 billion. That’s greater than 10% of the GDP of Cyprus. If companies such as Crest Nicholson, McCarthy & Stone and Crosby Homes some of which are miniscule in comparison (definitely in real terms, more so in relative terms) are listed in Wikipedia I don’t see why larger companies that have had a more significant global impact (albeit in other regions of the world) should not be featured. One could interpret this as a double standards policy favoring companies such as those I site above, on the grounds that they based in more influential countries.

Please note this was not an attempt to advertise J&P as I have no affiliations to this company whatsoever and if fact I morally agree that wikipedia should not be used as a platform for company advertising. The information I included was very similar to what's posted on the construction companies I site above. In fact I went a step further and used the infobox template to present this.

Furthermore one could take offence to your description of the article as spam. As you might notice from my other articles so far, I put quite a lot of effort to source independent references (one of which I included in the article) on the figures stated and the company’s international ranking.

Would you like me to move this article to your userspace. I deleted as spam, but it could have also been deleted under CSD G4. G4 is used when an article that was deleted is reposted agian. You have created this article twice on the same day. I would trust you to know when to move out of your userspace, (as in when it is a more fully developed article that won't get tagged). Would you like me to undelte and move to your userspace? —— Eagle (ask me for help) 23:16, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I am not sure what userpsace is, if you think it is appropriate go ahead and move it. I had re-posted this article as I was under the impression that my work was never saved (I was working on it in “preview mode” and thought I had not saved it prior to logging off last night). In fact I was kicking myself as I had to do all the typing again. I had made this mistake before.

What I’d prefer however, is your justification for deleting the article. Please take a quick look at the articles on Crest Nicholson and McCarthy & Stone. To me they seem no different as to the content. Is it the fact that I presented the same info within an infobox template rather than as a narrative? Or is it that they are British?

StephP 00:51, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Nah, I am probably in the wrong, I was working on WP:CSD and have deleted over 200 articles today. I probably made a mistake between the delete becuase repost, and the delete becuase spam. This is my error, I will undelete the page for you. I will also put a little work into it to improve it a bit. Cheers!—— Eagle (ask me for help) 02:19, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 3. Discussion with User: Fang Aili (administrator 2)

I would like to raise with you the issue of you recent deletion of my article on [J&P]. I summarize my argument below: J&P is a household name in the Middle East having build most of the infrastructure in several countries, information which I started outlining in my article. For a country the size of Cyprus, it has had an impact similar, if not greater, to what Nokia has for Finland. Or Royal Dutch Shell to Holland. To put this in perspective for you, the figure of 14,000 employees translates to roughly 5% of the total employed population. It has a turnover of more than £1 billion. That’s greater than 10% of the GDP of Cyprus. If companies such as Crest Nicholson, McCarthy & Stone and Crosby Homes some of which are miniscule in comparison (definitely in real terms, more so in relative terms) are listed in Wikipedia I don’t see why larger companies that have had a more significant global impact (albeit in other regions of the world) should not be featured. One could interpret this as a double standards policy favoring companies such as those I site above on the grounds that they based in more influential countries. Please note this was not an attempt to advertise J&P as I have no affiliations to this company whatsoever and in fact I morally agree that wikipedia should not be used as a platform for company advertising. The information I included was very similar to what's posted on the construction companies I site above. In fact I went a step further and used the infobox template to present this. As you might notice from my other articles too, I put quite a lot of effort to source independent references (one of which I included in the article) on the figures stated and the company’s international ranking. StephP (talk • contribs)

This company looks notable to me. You might want to copy and paste your arguments into the talk page, lest anyone wish to delete it again. And any additional information that would support the company's notability would be great. Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia! --Fang Aili ^talk 13:13, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:J&P.gif

Image:J&P.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 23:47, 13 February 2008 (UTC)