Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/C.C.P Contact Probes

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The result was Withdrawn. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 05:32, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

C.C.P Contact Probes[edit]

[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)

Trivial promotional article for a minor company. Revenue $60 million a year--it is listed on the Taiwanese stock exchange, and the fact that they list it makes it clear that such listing should not be taken to imply notability . (And even if one thought it usually did so imply, this would be an exception, because the references are either from the company or mere routine reports, and do not meet NCORP. DGG ( talk ) 01:03, 16 October 2018 (UTC) Nomination withdrawn, see below DGG ( talk ) 04:55, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:LISTED on a major stock exchange. 1000+ employee company is not insignificant in a place like Taiwan. Darn near every pageant winner (for example) is way less significant than any public companies. This is not a promotional article, it is just factual. It was created by someone who was looking for English info on the company and surprised no Wikipedia page existed. Given time and editors with good Chinese skills I am confident many additional sources can be brought to bear on this page, just like every other public company generates significant coverage in reliable sources. Please don't let English source bias lead us to kill valid topics.

There is a public good in covering public companies. They are often signifocant employers, and pension funds and the general public tend to invest in these companies. They also suport suppliers and genrally make an economic impact in the areas they operate. Hundreds of thousand of people are genrally impacted by even a small cap public company. Wikipedia has become so scared of "promotion" we hae moved to giving auto-notability to Olympic athletes who won nothing and for whom we can often find no bio info (so what notability is there and who cares about them?) but we throw out profiles of companies that operate for decades employing thousands of people, selling millions in products and finding their way into the retirement account of countless people. It is messed up. Legacypac (talk) 01:27, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(1)There is a public good in covering notable public companies. public ≠ notable, or even to important or significant That we have excessive coverage in some fields is no reason to have it in others. DGG ( talk ) 05:11, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Except many AfDs have found Listed = Notable. Would you advocate that notability standards be set much lower for athletes and pageant winners than companies? Because this is not a matter of over coverage but of standards for notability. Legacypac (talk) 06:04, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree on your point, DGG, if we were talking about a penny stock with 20 employees, a MCap of $500k and only traded OTC. But with almost 1000 employees CCP is categorized according to the OECD as a "Large Enterprise" ^[1] and statistically among the top 2% of enterprises in terms of size. I think Wikipedia should establish some fixed rules that are based on the number of employees, listed/non-listed, mcap, world-coverage that can be measured to decide if a company is notable or not, exceptions from these rules are always possible.Jole222 (talk) 09:53, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am the main author of the article to put that upfront. I would argue the same as Legacypac. The company is listed on a major stock exchange and as such of interest to investors worldwide. With around 1000 employees and multiple suppliers, it affects thousands of people. Apart from that: The company is not a simple manufacturer that makes generic screws but has its own research and development team and almost everyone has had its products unknowingly in their hand before. No one had heard of the battery suppliers of Samsung before the Galaxy Note 7 exploded and I personally don't think it needs a scandal to make a publicly listed company notable. If the article appears to be promotional please help me to take out phrases that give that impression. I will also try to change the company history to be more relevant, but I haven't found sources that I can read, and I prefer not to base the article on google translate.

Last but not least. Countries like Taiwan, Germany or Japan have a strong base of mid-size companies that export niche products worldwide. A good example would be Farber-Castell. If we follow a strict notability argument we would have to exclude this company. After all: it just makes pencils. Jole222 (talk) 12:03, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I approved this article at AfC after discussion at the AfC help desk, despite the fact that DGG had rejected it as contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia and not notable. I believe the subject is likely to be sufficiently covered the meet WP:NCORP in it's own language due to it's status as a nationally important employer, manufacturer, and exchange listed company. There are 1,572,640 companies in Taiwan.^[2] Only 917 are relevant enough to be listed.^[3] — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 13:26, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:37, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:37, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am actually not merely willing but eager to replace the GNG with subject-oriented guidelines, and would be certainly consider even such a broad one as listed companies--in fact I would consider almost any level as long as it gave a definite standard. But the discussion at AfD have always held that for most subject specific guidelines, they only give a presupposition of notability, and the actual standard is NCORP. And I generally give an opinion in line with what I think is the current interpretation. So what is being suggested here? That we have an article for every listed company and ALSO for the unlisted companies that pass NCORP? I'm not sure I would support that, but I would support Any listed company + those that an be shown to be of equal importance in some definite manner. DGG ( talk ) 23:06, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly not every listed company. But Wikipedia could define the main Exchanges of each country and use them as a reference to determine their relevance as those exchanges have their procedures regarding who can get listed and who can't (proper auditing, etc.). That would automatically exclude OTCs, non-audited small caps and penny stock (unless of course, they meet NCORP). It would also be in line with Legacypac comment regarding public interest and pension funds, etc. as those funds are usually only allowed to buy and trade stocks on main exchanges. Jole222 (talk) 01:15, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment2' Based on this discussion , I shall be preparing a proposal. I thank those who challenged me for giving me reason to think further. DGG ( talk ) 15:18, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'd exclude listed shell companies, but any company that gets itself listed for trading on a major exchange has to go through significant vetting and abide by significant reporting requirements. That in itself generates a lot of info on the company. If you wamt help on the proposal ping me. Legacypac (talk) 15:30, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Changing to keep, and withdrawing the nomination. On the basis of discussions here and elsewhere , I now agree with Legacypac's position, as refined by Jole222 as applied to public companies on major national exchanges, even if they are not the highest level exchanges of international repute. We still need to be relatively selective to discourage articles that will primarily attract promotionalism, but I (and many of us) have gradually come to an over-extensive use of this justification. We should better fight promotionalism by focusing more on removing promotional content within articles, and dealing more effectively with promotional editors, leaving deletion for the articles that cannot be improved. DGG ( talk ) 04:55, 23 October 2018 (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.