Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Al Rostamani Group
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. W.marsh 00:27, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Al Rostamani Group[edit]
Disputed notability, placing here so debate can take place. I'm choosing to Abstain for now. Change to Delete, after researching I can find very little notable about this other than its size, and I don't think much more could be added to the article. Seraphimblade 04:20, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep. Seems notable enough, and certainly is a UAE conglomerate. --N Shar 04:32, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Fairly large company as it seems. But if the article stays like that (one-line, hm.), a delete may be the solution. AQu01rius (User | Talk | Websites) 04:39, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails WP:CORP. Not listed in indices, not stock market listed, few (if any) mentions in published non-trivial works according to Google. Sure,it's quite big but doesn't seem very notable. QuiteUnusual 20:29, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Private companies are not listed in indices as they are not traded publicly. Being a private company alone doesn't exclude it from WP:CORP. Many extremely notable companies are private. --Marriedtofilm 02:35, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Please read beyond the first comma in the sentence that you are responding to. Uncle G 15:29, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Please comprehend the response was specifically to the "Not listed in indices, not stock market listed" argument for deletion. We are not required to respond to entire contents of paragraphs ... and that we should assume in good faith we read them in their entirety. --Marriedtofilm 15:48, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- That your response erroneously failed to address anything beyond the comma, where QuiteUnusual had already addressed the other criteria in WP:CORP, is indeed the very point that I made. It's rather amusing that you are asking that others comprehend that you ignored everything beyond the comma and responded to half a sentence with a point that had been already addressed in the other half. We already do. Uncle G 16:17, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The user stated "Not listed in indices, not stock market listed" as an argument for deletion along with what's beyond the comma. I choose to to counter what was specifically that argument. What's beyond the comma, "few (if any) mentions in published non-trivial works according to Google." is an additional point that the user was making. If you want to point out the fact I didn't respond to that second argument (which I assume in good faith is already apparent to the readers), go right ahead, but don't make a personal attack claiming I didn't read the whole thing. --Marriedtofilm 20:19, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- That your response erroneously failed to address anything beyond the comma, where QuiteUnusual had already addressed the other criteria in WP:CORP, is indeed the very point that I made. It's rather amusing that you are asking that others comprehend that you ignored everything beyond the comma and responded to half a sentence with a point that had been already addressed in the other half. We already do. Uncle G 16:17, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Please comprehend the response was specifically to the "Not listed in indices, not stock market listed" argument for deletion. We are not required to respond to entire contents of paragraphs ... and that we should assume in good faith we read them in their entirety. --Marriedtofilm 15:48, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Please read beyond the first comma in the sentence that you are responding to. Uncle G 15:29, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Private companies are not listed in indices as they are not traded publicly. Being a private company alone doesn't exclude it from WP:CORP. Many extremely notable companies are private. --Marriedtofilm 02:35, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep. According to the company website, net assets are in excess of $550 million USD. One of the subsidiaries, Arabian Automotive Co, sounds fairly notable as a distributor of several major car marques. Website is very out of date though, so difficult to tell if company is still notable today. Given that the company is in private ownership, it's hardly surprising there's no stock market listing; that doesn't particularly make it non-notable. DWaterson 22:25, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Assets is not a measure of notability. Having a stock market listing is according to WP:CORP. QuiteUnusual 08:19, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Point of Information FYI, while net assets of a private company are not quite the same as the market cap of a publically traded company, note that a public company with less than US$2bn market cap is generally known in the finance world as a small cap company. Being in the $2bn to $10bn range is known as mid-cap. Large cap is >$10bn[1].This company's website says that its net asset worth is $1bn with not much debt... this most likely places it in the small cap range if it was publicly traded. Also, the UAE is a wealthy country, so it is not obvious that a <$2bn company is a dominant player. Also rough estimates for self-valuation by private companies which are not required to disclose any or verify (publicly audit) any financial information to the public should probably be considered an unreliable, self-publishing source for this particular kind of information Bwithh 04:45, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- As anyone who regularly invests in stocks or stock mutual funds knows, publicly traded companies very frequently will have market cap values that are much higher than the companies' actual value (real assests). This is usually attributed to investor speculation. Comparing a publicly traded company's "market cap" to a privately held company's "assets" is like comparing apples to oranges. --Marriedtofilm 06:48, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not comparing apples to oranges, though they are different (and market cap value can be lower than the value of a company's "real assets"). Valuation of market cap or of assets is not primarily understood as the result of on the one hand, "speculation" or on the other, just "fire sale value" - its key that it must incorporate the expected future earnings of the combination of technical, human, and financial capital in place. A company's asset value doesn't just include the base price of tangible real assets. It's the market value of the tangible and intangible assets. Obviously if you fire the personnel, give up the goodwill, and sell off the equipment piece by piece, the "fire sale value" is going to be less than the sum of the parts. But we talking about the worth of a company, not a just a bunch of random stuff for sale. Anyway, my primary point was that a $1-2bn company is not that impressive. Bwithh 14:50, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comparing an unknown nonexistent "market cap" to the real "assets" of a private firm is not a correct method of gauging the scope of a company. As you said, the open market might value a company lower than a company's "real assets," as well has higher and sometimes several times higher. We just don't know. As this company is not publicly traded, any assumption on market cap value is guesstimation. --Marriedtofilm 20:28, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not comparing apples to oranges, though they are different (and market cap value can be lower than the value of a company's "real assets"). Valuation of market cap or of assets is not primarily understood as the result of on the one hand, "speculation" or on the other, just "fire sale value" - its key that it must incorporate the expected future earnings of the combination of technical, human, and financial capital in place. A company's asset value doesn't just include the base price of tangible real assets. It's the market value of the tangible and intangible assets. Obviously if you fire the personnel, give up the goodwill, and sell off the equipment piece by piece, the "fire sale value" is going to be less than the sum of the parts. But we talking about the worth of a company, not a just a bunch of random stuff for sale. Anyway, my primary point was that a $1-2bn company is not that impressive. Bwithh 14:50, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- As anyone who regularly invests in stocks or stock mutual funds knows, publicly traded companies very frequently will have market cap values that are much higher than the companies' actual value (real assests). This is usually attributed to investor speculation. Comparing a publicly traded company's "market cap" to a privately held company's "assets" is like comparing apples to oranges. --Marriedtofilm 06:48, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Delete Impressive assets assuming above information is accurate, but the article itself makes no claim of notability, "number of employees" not being one of our criteria after all. -Elmer Clark 02:51, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, KrakatoaKatie 03:08, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and let grow. One of the big conglomerates and venture capitalists in the UAE with major holdings there (even a major sponsor of the very pricey Dubai World Cup). --Marriedtofilm 03:12, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete without prejudice. The company may be notable, but this doesn't tell me much about why. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:13, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Noone has shown why this company is encyclopedically notable so far Bwithh 14:50, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Bwithh. ~ trialsanderrors 18:15, 27 October 2006 (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.