Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United Shipping & Trading Company

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. Rlendog (talk) 19:35, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

United Shipping & Trading Company[edit]

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

Not notable global group of oild companies from Denmark. I did a quick scan on Google and found deveral mentions on Businessweek and other websites, but I'm afraid this fails WP:CORPDEPTH. — Ṟ Ṉ™ 16:08, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:04, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As you can see here the company has just been ranked as the third largest Danish company based on turn-over so I think it is notable. Ramblersen (talk) 16:38, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that, but I considered that it was not enough... I tried to find more sources but wast able. Any help would be very appreciated. — Ṟ Ṉ™ 16:41, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You can see another one here. I agree that there aren't a lot of sources, though, but imo that is also a reason for covering it (and actually why I made the stub) as long as there is notability and the sources are there. But I have really very little interest in this subject so I am not going to spend a lot of time trying to expand the article. You are very welcome to delete the article if you find the subject unnotable.Ramblersen (talk) 16:55, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Although size per se is not generally regarded as relevant for notability in WP, the fact that even the largest compnaies in Europe often struggle to pass AfD suggests that we are over bureaucratic in our application of the criteria. A company which has the third highest turnover in the Denmark, equivalent to almost 12 billion USD in 2011, and has been around since 1873 ought to have an entry. If there are comparable US companies which are not considered notable I should be very surprised, and that suggests a cultural bias in WP which we ought to correct. --AJHingston (talk) 22:48, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:52, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:52, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:52, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Topic appears to pass WP:GNG per several sources in Danish: [1], [2], [3], [4]. There's also these mentions: [5], [6], [7]. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:01, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with AJHingston. A company that's over a hundred years old and making 12 billion dollars in a single year, is obviously notable. And Northamerica1000 has found some sources as well. Dream Focus 20:58, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Huge global shipping entity. Tons of Danish sources. Some in the article, some here, use google.dk to search for even more, if needed. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 20:58, 29 October 2012 (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.