Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Advans

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. Kudos to the COI editor for their candor. I have no reason to think they used anything but the highest professional writing standards in their work, and verified all claims made. However, consensus here is that the company does not meet our notability guidelines. Owen× ☎ 14:56, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Advans

[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)

This entity isn't sufficiently notable. All I can find is sources basically just describing the entity. No independent magazine articles about the entity, that sort of thing. But, even supposing that you think it manages to make it over the line to marginal notability. It's a time-eater as it's being worried by Advans itself through an agent. This is legit by our rules, but still... the talk page is only a list of ten threads labeled "Request for Edit – Conflict of Interest Disclosure" and an RfC which got me summoned to it (I am otherwise entirely uninvolved). The marginal notability (if that) is not worth the cost of dealing with multiple requests for edits, and we are not required to host any article that just plain isn't worth the trouble. Herostratus (talk) 22:57, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, Africa, and Luxembourg. Shellwood (talk) 23:43, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I appreciate you letting me know what you think about the page.

I have proceeded by 10 distinct requests to optimize visibility and therefore the processing and analysis of these requests by the volunteers. My aim is to make the site as readable, clear and organized as possible.

As far as deleting the page is concerned, as you say, I followed Wikipedia's rules to the letter - both in terms of content and form, taking care to respect the neutrality and verifiability of the information. Given my position, I leave it to the volunteers to decide the page's fate. However, this raises a broader question: if strict adherence to Wikipedia's fundamental principles - transparency, neutrality, reliable secondary sources - is no longer sufficient to justify the retention of an article, perhaps this raises questions about the way these rules are interpreted today, or even the need to re-examine their application.

As for Advans' reputation, my job has led me to do some advanced research on the company. First of all, before accepting my assignment, I wanted to check the company's status, history and reputation, so that the validation of the Wikipedia page would run properly. You can take a look at my requests, which include various sources such as https://shs.cairn.info/revue-techniques-financieres-et-developpement-2015-2-page-43?lang=fr or https://www.jeuneafrique.com/27158/economie-entreprises/advans-s-implante-au-nigeria/ or https://www.fmo.nl/project-detail/59081.

It is also a company supervised by the Luxembourg Commission for the Supervision of the Financial Sector (CSSF) and supported by financial institutions such as the European Investment Bank (EIB). For me, it was essential not to work with an uncertain organization.

Of course, I only want one thing: legitimacy and justice. If any of my requests are not appropriate, please let me know so that I can revise my approach.

Thank you Solenereboulet (talk) 06:42, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sure you followed the rules. But we are not the DMV here. The article's just not worth the trouble. It's apparantly pretty much being worked on by the company thru you, an agent. That's not what our articles are for. There is a difference between "not, technically, against the rules" and "a good thing for the project". We can use WP:IAR if neccessary. Herostratus (talk) 05:00, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Taking it upon myself, per the article creator's invitation for a "community review," to check the text out for promotional content, I identify a different notable characteristic: the subject lacks notability, as that trait is defined here. After a day's chase, I found not much more sourcing than what's already in the text. And what is there is not nearly enough:

We have primary sourcing, such as this and this; an advertorial about the Côte d’Ivoire branch's "5th anniversary" (here); a link to the Tunisian website kapitalis that is thankfully dead since the title prepares us for yet another advertorial; a reproduction of a press release ("Advans La Fayette Microfinance Bank gets a new Management team"); one more blatant advertorial ("Avans launched its new brand identity and a new logo reflecting both the company’s rapid growth since its inception only five years ago, and its resolve to stay committed to adding meaningful value to the microfinance sector", and so on) reproduced verbatim in many other sources (e.g. here);

The only claim of some substance to notability are (a) the report of the World Bank having a 19.5 percent stake in Amret, an Advans subsidiary in Cambodia, and (b) the fact that Advans obtains loan support from major finance institutions, such as this one from FMO, the Dutch development bank. The latter, however, is no more than a trivial and routine financing act: We essentially learn that Advans provenly exists and is not a fraudulent scheme. In sum, we do not seem to have enough foundational material for a lemma.

Therefore, I suggest Delete. -The Gnome (talk) 17:17, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The promotional elements overshadow the article neutrality. This is a monumental issue as NPOV is one of the "fundamental principles of Wikipedia". A comment above states the "only claim" and provides a "portfolio report" that is promotional. See the comments below. Otr500 (talk)
Comment There seems to be three different issues here from what I can guage. 1) Is the issue about the notability of the article? If that's the issue, then I'm sure we can discuss that on this AfD and let the AfD runs its natural cause. I will take a look at -The Gnome's links and my own research and vote later. 2) Is this article nominated because of COI? If yes, COIs are allowed provided appropriate disclosures have been made along along with adhering to other Wiki policies relating to COI. From what I can see here, the editor has admitted to COI and the nom agreed they've done nothing wrong. Therefore, this does not seem to be the issue, or at least, shouldn't be if the editor has followed protocol. Besides, COI issues should be taken to the appropriate platform. 3) Is this article nominated because of maintenance issues? If yes, maintenance issues is not a rationale for deletion. That falls under our routine maintenace procedures. I think it would be helpful to narrow the scope of this AfD, in particular, germane to notability. Tamsier (talk) 20:56, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There's one issue: keep the the thing or not. (Merge or userfy are possible outcomes at AfD too). It's "articles for deletion", not "articles for deletion solely on the basis of notability"; it's a wiki and we can delete it for any reason we like if people agree, and WP:TNT is sometimes invoked, which means notable or not it's not a keeper. Could be because the article is in pidgin English, or is too convoluted and badly written to be usable, or is shot thru with POV to the bone, or whatever, to the degree that it'd be easier to just delete it and start over. Or maybe for some reason (subject to eternal edit-warring or whatever} it's just a time sink and not worth it for an article that's on the bubble anyway. Or was created by a banned user. Or whatever. We're a large and fast-moving publishing outfit not a court of law. Herostratus (talk) 20:41, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stubify, possibly draftify, and rework (though deletion is still acceptable). When I first saw this article off of the RfC (thanks YapperBot!), I thought about nominating it for AfD but ultimately decided against it. It definitely needs a lot of work, and User:Solenereboulet might be worth taking to WP:AfD or WP:SPI, but I don't think that's necessarily worth deleting outright. I only know English and Mandarin so it's hard for me to verify the sources in the description, but I don't think there's nothing there. The biggest problem with the sources listed is that they appear to be WP:TRIVIALCOVERAGE at a glance, but others here have been looking into finding other sources. I think this article needs to be chopped down to a stub and more sources need to be found. If not enough good sources can be found to justify notability, then it should be draftified. guninvalid (talk) 21:40, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (apologies for the wrong placement of my comment above). I don't see much RS with significant coverage that meets our WP:ORG test. There is a higher standard for ORG than the usual article. Primary sources do not confirm notability, and independent RS with SIGCOV are insufficient to justify a stand alone-article. My vote is purely based on notability, and SIGCOV by RS, and nothing else. On a side note, I don't think it is appropriate/wise to accuse businesses of "scam" or "fraud" in an AfD (or anywhere else on this project) without proof. That could land the project into big trouble, and I strongly advise against it. Tamsier (talk) 22:06, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source Analysis Table

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Here's a source analysis table because apparently I really like procrastiworking and not thinking about the assignments I have due in... 6 hours. guninvalid (talk) 22:03, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Citation	Title	Language	Verdict
1	Advans Group: About us	EN	WP:PRIMARY
2	Advans Côte d'Ivoire célèbre son 5e anniversaire	FR	¯\_(ツ)_/¯
3	Création bientôt d'Advans Tunisie pour relancer la microfinance	FR	404 Error
4	About Us	EN	WP:PRIMARY
5	Advans La Fayette Microfinance Bank gets a new Management team	EN	Arguably trivial, but possibly still reliable.
6	Advans Bank pledges to continue supporting Pak entrepreneurs	EN	Probably reliable.
7	Amret to get $40 million from IFC to expand microfinance loan portfolio	EN	Probably reliable.
8	Advans Ghana launches "Hero" campaign	EN	Looks press release-y, though possibly reliable.

Comments

I use a different approach to reviewing an article brought to AFD. When I see an entry, 1)- I read the article, 2)-I search for sources, 3) I look at the sources on the article. THEN, 4)- I read the AFD comments and talk page. This usually entails from 10 to up to 40 tabs and I do not become hindered with concerns of paid contributions or "editors for hire". Very time-consuming. At a point, a new direction is traveled concerning COI involvement. More tabs, checking talk pages, rereading the article and sources to ensure nothing was missed.

Sources like this (Sources like this [Cairn]) are immediately discounted as promotional. Read the opening paragraph: "...to detail a case study conducted by Advans Côte d'Ivoire (Advans CI)" and then, "...to share the current research and development work of the Advans group". The piece shows Advans "...becoming increasingly directly involved with the cooperatives and increasing its risk-taking as the institution gained knowledge of the sector and producers." Content also explains "Advans CI became fully responsible for the entire process, from identifying needs to monitoring reimbursement, including negotiations with input suppliers." This is a type of silent partner. The article is written in favor of that relationship, which introduces bias. As I go through the sources I see primary sources, which does not advance notability, press releases such as nairametrics ("Advans La Fayette Microfinance Bank has announced the appointments of new executive staff members"), and other promotional type sources.

Any fact of notability becomes severely handicapped when there is Advocacy and/or propaganda. Chopping the article back to a bare stub means attempting to find reliable and independent sources to at least neutrally advance notability.

To Be or Not to Be: At a point, it becomes clear that as written and sourced the article is still an advertising page. Any hope of notability becomes secondary as the time already expended, as mentioned above (time-eater) is enormous for volunteer editors that receive no compensation. At this point (actually already past) the burden shifts to the ones advocating for retention. NOTE: The mandate on declaring COI is normally never fully followed. Note to paid editors: The mandate to follow "transparency and neutrality requirements" is Editors receiving payment must disclose their employer, client, and affiliation, on their user page, talk page, or in edit summaries. This is a monumental problem that is almost never fully complied with. Just stating being "paid to contribute to an article" by an entity is not the only criteria, if one or the other is omitted.

Request for edits that includes "Updates on the group’s climate resilience strategy and its financial inclusion goals" is an issue not likely to attract any help. Any sources that delve into a company's "financial inclusion goals" will inevitably be primary sources, press releases, or other advocacy sources.

Information on "international operations and divestments in Asia (Cambodia, Pakistan, Myanmar)", as well as "subsidiaries (Amret and Advans Tunisia)" is important content. Advans La Fayette Microfinance Bank was founded by Advans SA, now going by Advans Nigeria, seems informational. The same goes for ADVANS Pakistan Microfinance Bank being changed to “Halan Microfinance Bank Limited".

"Advans International Scams and Fraud" seems like worthy content. Rarely is any paid contributing, inclusive of even mildly derogatory information, included in an article. Advans Ghana Savings and Loans Ltd, a subsidiary of the Advans Group, has had instances of "fraud and scams".

The nature of business listings on Wikipedia tend to include "Insurmountable issues" that are next to impossible to overcome. -- Otr500 (talk) 17:15, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Tamsier, placing your suggestion above the Comments section is the right thing to do. You might want to move it there. It makes the closers' job easier. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 17:03, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Thanks. It was my mistake with this new system. Lol Tamsier (talk) 18:12, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Somewhat off-topic side rules question from nominator. I get that it's perfectly within our system for User:Solenereboulet to be able to make suggestions on the artice's talk page, and fine. However, it occurs to me that when an article about a company is up for deletion, is it OK for the company itself (through its agents) to discuss the article at AfD?? That's a horse of a different color. I don't know if there's a rule, but... I wouldn't think so. I suppose the company's agent could be required to go to Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Advans and make proposed edits to this AfD and just note on this page that they have done so. Not going to press the issue here, but maybe there should be a rule. Interesting question IMO.Herostratus (talk) 01:53, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if there's a specific policy around this, but in my view, the subject of an article at AfD, whether a person or an entity, should have as much of a right to participate as anyone else. If, for example, an article about myself appeared on Wikipedia, I would be very interested in the outcome of an AfD and would very much appreciate my thoughts being heard. Same would go for my company. Typically though, these kinds of COI opinions should declare their relationship with the entity, whether being an affiliate or an employee or being the entity. guninvalid (talk) 05:19, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know of any rule that would preclude someone with a declared COI from participating in an AfD, and I would be surprised to find one existed. -- asilvering (talk) 11:15, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(I want to make super clear that I bear no animus toward User:Solenereboulet, they have been scrupulously legal and very polite and proper, and the profession of Public Relations is useful, honorable, and necessary, and also that I hope all this doesn't affect their livlihood. This is just business.) Herostratus (talk) 01:53, 16 April 2025 (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.