Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Companies listed on the Singapore Exchange

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 keep. /ƒETCH COMMS / 03:58, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Companies listed on the Singapore Exchange[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article fails to satisfy WP:N and doesn't have coverage in Third-party sources. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 10:15, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The author who has contributed the most edits to this article, Huaiwei, has been notified of this ongoing discussion. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 23:39, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — Wikipedia:LISTN#Stand-alone lists includes the passage "A list topic is considered notable if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list." It is well demonstrated that the presence of a company on a particular stock exchange is a common topic for reliable sources; further the Singapore Stock Exchange is notable itself. Therefore, by extension, the notability of a list of companies on the Singapore Stock Exchange is notable. Now, I've not taken this logic to its potentially absurd limits, but I am confident that someone(s) will do so. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 15:42, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Currently there is not even one independent source in the article. The given websites all belong to Singapore Exchange Ltd and are therefore not independent. Thus this article fails to satisfy WP:N. Also, WP:LISTN says the topic of a list "is considered notable if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources". The given references are all websites maintained by SGX and not independent of the subject. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 16:05, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I interpret WP:LISTN a bit differently and more loosely than you do, it appears. However, the list can be retained at least in part based on a different support method. As it is quite unlikely that a copy of the Singapore Exchange members list will be independently published, the alternative is to independently cite membership at the company level. This means that, for instance, a source such as http://www.hoovers.com/company/Allgreen_Properties_Limited/rtrsrsi-1.html would be used to support inclusion of Allgreen Properties Limited in the list, and separate references would be needed for the ISIN code and listing date. If consensus is that each line item needs independent sourcing, that would be OK and would, in fact, strengthen wikipedia, albeit at the cost of a major increase in effort to create and maintain lists of entities as members of a group. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 16:39, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If sources like the one you give for Allgreen could be added to all entries, I would be happy. Also I must say personally I don't like the statement "A list topic is considered notable if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources." in the guideline, as this would leave Wikipedia with almost no lists at all. I think this part of that guideline should be changed, maybe I will start a discussion on that. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 16:58, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment—The article was not properly tagged with {{subst:afd1}}; I have added that now. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 15:47, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment—I have started a general discussion regarding this at WT:NOTE. I encourage other editors to participate. Thanks. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 17:22, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The guideline has now been expanded, see Wikipedia talk:Notability#Change notability criteria for list topics. This means it is now sufficient to provide a reliable source for each specific company showing it is listed on SGX and it is not necessary to have a source where the entire list has been published. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 19:47, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, that is not what the revision to the guideline implies. What it says is that one no longer needs a published source which relates the entire list. It says nothing to the notion of whether a list can be composed if every line item is individually referenced. The line "Notability of lists ... is based on the group" and those which follow pretty clearly support the notion that if the Exchange is notable (it is) and subsets of the members of the exchange have been discussed as such (they have), then the list passes the notability test. With respect to this AfD, I think it best to bring this particular conversation to a close and allow others to weigh in with their opinions. The closing administrator can weigh our inputs alongside others provided over the next couple of days. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 21:05, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lets see what happens then. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 21:30, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest more directly now that you take a step back and let others provide their input independent of either of our commentary. You have provided a lot of useful input so far. There will be ample time to provide additional feedback on comments provided before closure of the AfD. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 14:08, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is quite encyclopedic. Some of the companies listed have their own Wikipedia articles even. And I'm certain the Singapore newspapers cover some of these in their business section, as do business related magazines, and television shows about the stock market in their nation. Dream Focus 08:51, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment—Everybody participating in this discussion should read WP:GNG ""Sources", for notability purposes, should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally expected. Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability." As it stands, the article does not have multiple sources per the above definition. Therefore this article fails to satisfy WP:N. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 10:56, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can click the Google news archive search at the top of this AFD and get 42 results instantly. That's if you search for "companies listed on the Singapore Exchange". Changing the wording gets more results. When a company gets added to that list, they have news coverage of this. The Singapore Exchange is already proven notable. Listing companies that are part of it, is a perfectly reasonable and logical thing to do for a Wikipedia list article. Dream Focus 11:04, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please show me the policy which states that something is notable only because it is related to something else that is notable. By this reasoning, I could start articles like List of people residing in Shanghai or List of lavatories in the Empire State Building. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 11:24, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You use common sense to determine what is appropriate or not. Dream Focus 12:09, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You use arguments like "You can click the Google news archive search at the top of this AFD and get 42 results.", while none of the sources that show up there proves the notability of this particular listing of companies. As it stands, most of the companies given in the list are not notable and this list therefore is not either. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 13:01, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Channel News Asia covers them [1] saying "By the end of last September, there were 130 Chinese companies listed on the Singapore Exchange, accounting for 17.7 percent of all companies listed here." And it these companies accounted for $50 billion US dollars. Lot of money.
In a news article not loading up at the moment “We are extremely honoured and delighted to be among the esteemed companies listed on the Singapore Exchange." News coverage of businesses saying how important it was to be listed.
The Star Online says "About 40%, or about 200, of the more than 700 companies listed on the Singapore Exchange are foreign companies, which made up 70% of new listings on the exchange this year." [2] See? Being on this list is important enough to get ample news coverage. Dream Focus 13:29, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

These sources do not prove the notability of either

this particular list on Wikipedia or
the "more than 700 companies listed on the Singapore exchange"

Unless you have sources that do either

discuss the group of companies listed on the Singapore Exchange or
prove that every single of the companies listed on the Singapore Exchange are notable

neither every single one of the companies listed on the Singapore Exchange, nor the whole group of companies listed on the Singapore Exchange are notable enough to justify the existence of this article. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 13:53, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did a Google news archive search of the first thing on the list, it not having its own Wikipedia article. [3] "SINGAPORE: Mainboard-listed engineering and logistic firm A-Sonic Aerospace said Friday it has been placed on the watch-list of the Singapore Exchange (SGX)." Didn't bother sorting through the dozens of other news results. Any major company is going to be mentioned somewhere, and they'll mention the stock exchange its listed on as well. Coverage could be found for more of those companies if someone wanted to make an article for them. Most results will be in a language other than English though, but it could be done. The fact no one created Wikipedia articles for all of them yet, doesn't mean they aren't notable. Dream Focus 14:04, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good source, which should be added to the article. I think similar sources also should be provided for all the other companies, because then a reader can verify the correctness of this list and would be assured none of the placements of companies in this list is original research. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 14:13, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is precisely the type of information that readers would expect to be able to find in an encyclopedia, and is clearly verifiable from documents published by the exchange, whether or not they are readily available on the Internet - stock exchanges don't keep their registers secret. Let's not forget that the letter of any notability guideline is subservient to our fundamental mission of simply being an encyclopedia. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:07, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep , essentially according to Phil's argument. This is the way to handle less-than-notable subjects. DGG ( talk ) 02:03, 20 April 2011 (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.