Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shanghai Metals Market

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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:35, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Shanghai Metals Market[edit]

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

Chinese market research company, no third-party references, the article is promotional in nature. See also the former article metal.com, whose VfD I have closed as a redirect to the article about the company. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 12:16, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - same rationale as my nomination for Metal.com: lack of coverage in reliable sources. Note that if this article is deleted, Metal.com should be deleted as well. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:42, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The only question here should be notability. If the article is an advert and needs a fundamental rewrite to be acceptable, it should be deleted per G11. If it doesn't require a fundamental rewrite, being advertorial doesn't justify deletion of a notable subject. The claims made in this article and the metal.com article (before it was deleted), suggest strong notability. A Google News search and a Google News Archive search show pages and pages of article about Shanghai Metals Market and articles that quote employees of Shanghai Metals Market, suggesting that just being a higher-up or expert in the company makes your opinion notable. As for the advertorial content, I've removed it all (in my opinion). I see no reason to delete this article at this time. OlYeller21^Talktome 13:37, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

However, the sources are sources that quote the SMM, not actually about the SMM. Even if a company/person is an expert on something, if he/she/it is not the subject of enough significant, reliable coverage, then he/she/it still fails WP:GNG. While the news reports do look promising, unfortunately, they do not amount to significant coverage. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 01:21, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You'll also have trouble finding article about the New York Stock Exchange, itself, even though it has been a often discussed subject in the news over the last 5 years. When there are literally hundreds of sources that use SMM as a reliable primary source, should we ignore that? Do we ignore that Bloomberg L.P., The Globe and Mail, MarketWatch, Shanghai Daily, Business Week, Puls Biznesu, Telemarksavisa, Focus, Reuters, Prensa, China Daily and RBC TV all use SMM as a reliable source of information? Those are some major news sources from all over the world. That seems sort of silly to me. There are cases where something is so common that it's not covered on its own. OlYeller21^Talktome 04:14, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 19:12, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Darkwind (talk) 05:33, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Though the article has some third-party references and they are from reliable sources (per OlYeller21), I feel the topic's notability is still an issue. smtchahal^(talk) 06:46, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm also not finding the significant coverage in multiple reliable sources required to satisfy WP:GNG. However, given the important role that this company plays in the Chinese commodity market and the number of other media sources that regularly quote the SMM, I find this apparent lack of notability a bit surprising. Perhaps significant, reliable, coverage exists in Chinese language sources? (Does the Chinese Wikipedia have an article on this company?) If that avenue fails to yield results, a redirect and merge of a couple summarized sentences to Metal prices may be appropriate. --Mike Agricola (talk) 19:15, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The notability standards need to be applied with judgement. A company that supplies the standard figures used on an important market is notable by any rational standpoint, and being over-particular about the GNG doesn ot help the encyclopedia DGG ( talk ) 03:45, 24 April 2013 (UTC) Givingpeople useful information about what it is, does help. DGG ( talk ) 03:45, 24 April 2013 (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.