Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BBY Ltd

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 no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 04:47, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BBY Ltd

fails WP:ORG no real significant third party coverage. see google news search [1] LibStar (talk) 04:04, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would disagree. If you type BBY Ltd or BBY Limited in Google News and select 'All Dates' you will discover that there are many newswires which highlight BBY and what appear to be its analysts commenting on Australian Company's. If you have look at the facts, BBY Ltd accounts for a sizable amount of ASX market share, at present 10-15% the Size of Macquaire Group, one of the largest company's of its kind. BBY certainly would not be classified as a Large Investment Bank, but it is still noteworthy, espcially when you consider that it was ranked 9th Overall Best Invesment Banker in Australia by 2008 BRW East Coles Magaizine, ahead of Credit Suisse at 10, Caliburn Partners 11, and Morgan Stanley 12. See, http://bby.com.au/Portals/0/BBY/PDF/News/BBYNews05Feb09.pdf for the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zip1010 (talk • contribs) 13:09, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please discount the comment from above as this user admits working for the article subject [2] and thus have a severe conflict of interest. the user is also a single purpose editor. LibStar (talk) 08:56, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —LibStar (talk) 01:18, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Nick-D (talk) 08:18, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why not just delete half of Wikipedia? So much 'corporate' coverage is weak and/or self-serving, and presumably carefully vetted/planted and 'maintained' by the subject, yet allowed to remain if the company is big enough (and so presumably deemed 'significant')...this item has value, even if only providing quick reference/context, as do most items of this ilk. Correct, I am not Wikipedia's greatest fan (precisely for poncey behaviour like this), but I nevertheless do use it a lot as a lazy starting point (but at least half the time end up having to get accurate info elsewhere) and this item is not standout-weak...you 'editors' really need to grow up a lot if you're seriously considering cutting this but not many thousands of other company items. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.32.65.250 (talk) 19:43, 15 April 2009 (UTC) — 78.32.65.250 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep. Sufficient independent coverage to satisfy WP:CORP. WWGB (talk) 23:23, 15 April 2009 (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.