Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Converium Holding AG
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 Keep. (aeropagitica) (talk) 16:54, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Converium Holding AG[edit]
Non-notable corporation; fails WP:CORP. Valrith 17:06, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Noted reinsurer, listed on Swiss and New York stock exchanges Catchpole 18:31, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Being listed on a stock exchange isn't a notability criterion. Being a component of a share price index (that doesn't simply cover the whole market) is. See WP:CORP. And to support your statement that this company has been "noted", please point to where it has been noted. Please cite sources to support that currently unsupported assertion. Neither you nor the article have cited any. Uncle G 12:01, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Take your pick from the 35,000 pages on 'coverium holdings reinsurers' in google. They are rated by Standard and Poor's. Catchpole 12:30, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, "converium holdings reinsurers" returns 0 ghits. You can only get past 35,000 by leaving off the quotes altogether. `"converium holdings" +reinsurers` only returns 128 ghits. Valrith 13:08, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Counting Google hits is not research. One must actually read the pages that Google locates. If you find anything about this company beyond simple business directory listings and re-prints of corporate press releases, please cite it, as you've already been asked. Please demonstrate that the assertion that you made above is actually true. Uncle G 13:36, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Take your pick from the 35,000 pages on 'coverium holdings reinsurers' in google. They are rated by Standard and Poor's. Catchpole 12:30, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Being listed on a stock exchange isn't a notability criterion. Being a component of a share price index (that doesn't simply cover the whole market) is. See WP:CORP. And to support your statement that this company has been "noted", please point to where it has been noted. Please cite sources to support that currently unsupported assertion. Neither you nor the article have cited any. Uncle G 12:01, 20 August 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, Baseball,Baby! balls•strikes 01:54, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Delete Until the author(s) realize how to cite multiple, independent sources discussing the company, and to do it without violating copyright, this should be a delete. Marginally humorous remark expunged>. -- MyWikiBiz 14:43, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Separate to this discussion, that was a clearly blatant piece of advertising by MyWikiBiz and such I have blocked them for seven days whilst RfA process takes place. This is also related to earlier agreement that MyWikiBiz would not carry out this type of activity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlisonW (talk • contribs)
- Keep The Google test works especially badly when you don't spell the name of the company right. "Converium Holding AG" (no "s") gets 66,100 hits. "Converium Holding" gets 78,000. It's a huge reinsurer that is widely covered in the financial press and so meets the "multiple articles" requirement of WP:CORP. I'm going to resist the urge toward argumentum ad Pokemon here. JChap2007 16:16, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep, fairly obvious large global corporation. I've re-written the article to remove the terrible cut&paste corporate adcopy. It should pass most WP:CORP criteria; it is a member of several indexes; it has many, many mentions in independent articles. Take your pick - I've only added a handful as references in the article and noted the index componenet membership. Kuru talk 03:57, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. They seem to meet WP:CORP. However I slapped a Cleanup tag on there since the article could use more work if kept. Lack of quality is not a reason to delete as far as I know. Vegaswikian 05:41, 22 August 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.