Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sara Vietnam
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 no consensus. MBisanz talk 02:50, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sara Vietnam[edit]
- Sara Vietnam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Company does not appear to meet WP:CORP. I engaged the author of the article in discussion of this point on its talk page, and we do not agree on this point, so I declined the CSD and am nominating here to establish community consensus. The few external references merely confirm the company exists, but notability is not established, or, in my opinion, even asserted. Frank | talk 17:33, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. — Frank | talk 17:36, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — Frank | talk 17:38, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Sara Vietnam is a Vietnamese company. It is listed at the Hanoi Securities Trading Center, Alacrastore and Bloomberg, notability is certainly not an issue. Perhaps Sara Vietnam lacks the high level of modern sense and engagement with the English-speaking community as does a somewhat similar Vietnamese company, FPT Group, this could contribute to a lack of perceived transparency of the topic and its notability. No matter, it is still a valid corporate stub. --Mr Accountable (talk) 17:43, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete WP:CORP is not satisfied. Author seeks to avoid the inevitable consequences of this, without addressing the need. Kudos to User:Frank on his efforts to engage the author. --AndrewHowse (talk) 17:44, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a confusing delete comment. As written, it seems incoherent with regard to this discussion. What specifically are the "inevitable consequences" of WP:CORP not being satisfied? As the author, I can assure you that I am not seeking to avoid the inevitable consequences of not satisfying WP:CORP. But then again, it is difficult to understand what is written. Please explain. --Mr Accountable (talk) 18:08, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If an article doesn't meet the requirements for notability, then it will be deleted. --AndrewHowse (talk) 18:14, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It occurs to me that the commentator and the nominator seem to be engaging in blatant disregard for both the spirit and letter of the law viz WP:CORP. Article Sara Vietnam is no different than articles IBM and General Motors in its assertion of notability. At this time this deletion discussion has degenerated to a schoolyard logic. There is no way for the article to pass this unusual and unreasonable test, perhaps WP:SNOW is in effect. --Mr Accountable (talk) 18:28, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Mr Accountable, please read WP:AGF and follow what it says. If the subject of the article cannot pass this test, then it should be deleted. The test is neither unusual nor unreasonable, nor does the argument to delete violate either the spirit or the letter of WP:CORP. The difference between IBM and General Motors and Sara Vietnam is that the first two have reliable, third party sources to establish notability, while none have been provided for your article. Provide them and the article will be kept. Theseeker4 (talk) 18:33, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Google finance, Alacrastore, Hanoi Securities Trading Center are reliable third party sources; in all good faith, isn't that at least true? --Mr Accountable (talk) 20:24, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Mr Accountable, please read WP:AGF and follow what it says. If the subject of the article cannot pass this test, then it should be deleted. The test is neither unusual nor unreasonable, nor does the argument to delete violate either the spirit or the letter of WP:CORP. The difference between IBM and General Motors and Sara Vietnam is that the first two have reliable, third party sources to establish notability, while none have been provided for your article. Provide them and the article will be kept. Theseeker4 (talk) 18:33, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It occurs to me that the commentator and the nominator seem to be engaging in blatant disregard for both the spirit and letter of the law viz WP:CORP. Article Sara Vietnam is no different than articles IBM and General Motors in its assertion of notability. At this time this deletion discussion has degenerated to a schoolyard logic. There is no way for the article to pass this unusual and unreasonable test, perhaps WP:SNOW is in effect. --Mr Accountable (talk) 18:28, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If an article doesn't meet the requirements for notability, then it will be deleted. --AndrewHowse (talk) 18:14, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a confusing delete comment. As written, it seems incoherent with regard to this discussion. What specifically are the "inevitable consequences" of WP:CORP not being satisfied? As the author, I can assure you that I am not seeking to avoid the inevitable consequences of not satisfying WP:CORP. But then again, it is difficult to understand what is written. Please explain. --Mr Accountable (talk) 18:08, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unless sources, in any language, can be provided to establish notability. I don't need to cite policies, they have been cited and explained here and on the article talk page. Nothing established notability of this company, so until such reliable, independent, third party sources are found (again, they do not have to be in English) the article is subject to deletion. Theseeker4 (talk) 18:29, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, here is http://www.viet-kabu.com/news_d/vietselect/080118020516.html in Japanese, it's to be added to the article. --Mr Accountable (talk) 22:21, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. WP:CORP specifically says that being publicly traded by itself is not an automatic guarantee of notability; furthermore, I also have been unable to find any coverage (not just significant coverage) in Google News, which is where one would expect a notable traded company to show up. Drmies (talk) 18:41, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If you look for publicly traded companies, you should at first to look in Google Finance and this page is enough to establish notability.Beagel (talk) 19:13, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- From WP:CORP: "There has been considerable discussion over time whether publicly traded corporations, or at least publicly traded corporations listed on major stock exchanges such as the NYSE or NASDAQ, are inherently notable. Consensus has been that notability is not automatic in this case." Drmies (talk) 19:29, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I interpret 'stock exchange non-inherent notability' as 'almost completely verified as notable by inclusion on a stock exchange'; but one should also consider the stock exchange itself as there are actually very many minor, regional, unofficial stock exchanges in existence around the world that could be used by an editor in an article; I would think that being listed on something like HASTC or HoSTC would almost be functionally sufficient as one would also be listed at Google, Bloomeberg or Hoover's if one's company were accomplished enough to be listed on such a major exchange. --Mr Accountable (talk) 20:20, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- C'mon, I am not arguing about WP:CORP, I just said that Google News is not the only way to establish notability. In addition to the Google Finance I already presented, there is also a number of hits by Google Search, including some quite good ones to be included in this article.Beagel (talk) 20:37, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- By the way, I think Mr A's interpretation above is a very unusual one. If I read it correctly, it's much like saying that the statement "Apples are not inherently poisonous" can be read as "almost all apples are poisonous". I don't think that's an interpretation that would be widely accepted. --AndrewHowse (talk) 15:41, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Unusual perhaps to one not familiar with company research. Considering the nature of corporate research as a task and a career, I wouldn't say that listed companies are poison apples, I might say that listed companies are like apple pies at the supermarket, and maybe as far as Wikistandards are concerned, small unlisted company articles - here's one: Blue star Elevators (India) Ltd - are like apples on a tree. It's like the difference between Popular Mechanics and Scientific American, as far as original science research would be concerned. --Mr Accountable (talk) 16:50, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Blue star Elevators (India) Ltd lacks notability too. It shouldn't be here. There's no encyclopaedic content to it. Wikipedia still isn't a directory. --AndrewHowse (talk) 17:12, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- ! Wow, that was quick! --Mr Accountable (talk) 17:30, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Blue star Elevators (India) Ltd lacks notability too. It shouldn't be here. There's no encyclopaedic content to it. Wikipedia still isn't a directory. --AndrewHowse (talk) 17:12, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- ....There's different ways of looking at it. One way is "people work"; people work at companies, and there are paychecks. The paychecks are brought home and support families, including children who grow up and go to school and join the economy; the economy produces computers and food and city sidewalks and airplanes. There are many companies producing paychecks and there are definitely many reasons to keep track of them, and something important about the process of company research, if I may use italics, is that the brokerage community (research community) needs to do its job of keeping track of companies without really getting in the way of the paychecks. Obviously this is not an easy situation to maintain, one only need read the news, and the way to deal with company problems is to work for a universal coverage of all the companies; here on the Wikipedia it mostly consists of covering companies listed at stock exchanges. --Mr Accountable (talk) 17:19, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not what Wikipedia seeks to do. Universal coverage isn't going to happen here under current policies, and I'm afraid you'll find it frustrating to be here if you aim for universality. Please do read carefully the relvant policies and guidelines, such as WP:NOTABILITY, WP:CORP and WP:NOT. There are also helpful folk at WP:EAR whose assistance might be useful. --AndrewHowse (talk) 17:49, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, what would 'universal coverage' consist of? --Mr Accountable (talk) 18:22, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not what Wikipedia seeks to do. Universal coverage isn't going to happen here under current policies, and I'm afraid you'll find it frustrating to be here if you aim for universality. Please do read carefully the relvant policies and guidelines, such as WP:NOTABILITY, WP:CORP and WP:NOT. There are also helpful folk at WP:EAR whose assistance might be useful. --AndrewHowse (talk) 17:49, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Unusual perhaps to one not familiar with company research. Considering the nature of corporate research as a task and a career, I wouldn't say that listed companies are poison apples, I might say that listed companies are like apple pies at the supermarket, and maybe as far as Wikistandards are concerned, small unlisted company articles - here's one: Blue star Elevators (India) Ltd - are like apples on a tree. It's like the difference between Popular Mechanics and Scientific American, as far as original science research would be concerned. --Mr Accountable (talk) 16:50, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I interpret 'stock exchange non-inherent notability' as 'almost completely verified as notable by inclusion on a stock exchange'; but one should also consider the stock exchange itself as there are actually very many minor, regional, unofficial stock exchanges in existence around the world that could be used by an editor in an article; I would think that being listed on something like HASTC or HoSTC would almost be functionally sufficient as one would also be listed at Google, Bloomeberg or Hoover's if one's company were accomplished enough to be listed on such a major exchange. --Mr Accountable (talk) 20:20, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- From WP:CORP: "There has been considerable discussion over time whether publicly traded corporations, or at least publicly traded corporations listed on major stock exchanges such as the NYSE or NASDAQ, are inherently notable. Consensus has been that notability is not automatic in this case." Drmies (talk) 19:29, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If you look for publicly traded companies, you should at first to look in Google Finance and this page is enough to establish notability.Beagel (talk) 19:13, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Notability confirmed by Google Finance. [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beagel (talk • contribs) 15:14, 22 January 2009
- Why not add those "good" hits to the article? I didn't see any. What I saw was no coverage in Google News and only the mention of this company in Google Finance. That's not establishing notability. But if you feel differently, add the sources that you found and that you think are notable--that's more useful to me and others than just saying that they're there. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 21:54, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There are always standards of work product at Google finance, Wright Reports and others that make it possible to use the listings to some degree of effectiveness in a situation like this. The standards and effectiveness are driven by the concept of providing value to an investor at the end of the information supply chain...the information at Google: Finance: Sara Vietnam JSC should be usable and safe by financial service industry standards. Like peer-review standards, engineering standards, scientific standards, when presented effectively such information provides value to the reader. --Mr Accountable (talk) 22:12, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Why not add those "good" hits to the article? I didn't see any. What I saw was no coverage in Google News and only the mention of this company in Google Finance. That's not establishing notability. But if you feel differently, add the sources that you found and that you think are notable--that's more useful to me and others than just saying that they're there. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 21:54, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'm continuing with Vietnam corporate topic articles, I certainly hope everything is in order in regard to notability, assertion of notability, English and foreign-language article references etc, going forward. --Mr Accountable (talk) 21:57, 22 January 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.