Misplaced Pages

:Articles for deletion/Cominar: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 16:31, 23 August 2018 editJbhunley (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, IP block exemptions, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers22,645 edits →Cominar: re← Previous edit Revision as of 16:49, 23 August 2018 edit undoSerial Number 54129 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers99,432 edits hatNext edit →
Line 13: Line 13:
*'''Delete''' - massive failure to satisfy ]. All the coverage I could find failed either primary/independent or ]. No obvious redirect target, hence delete. ] (]) 15:28, 23 August 2018 (UTC) *'''Delete''' - massive failure to satisfy ]. All the coverage I could find failed either primary/independent or ]. No obvious redirect target, hence delete. ] (]) 15:28, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
*'''Keep'''. Cominar is traded on the Toronto Stock Exchange. ] states *'''Keep'''. Cominar is traded on the Toronto Stock Exchange. ] states
{{hat|Policy subsection ]<sup>]]</sup> 16:49, 23 August 2018 (UTC)}}

<blockquote>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 ] and other comparable international stock exchanges, are inherently notable. Consensus has been that notability is not automatic in this (or any other) case. However, sufficient independent sources almost always exist for such companies, so that notability can be established using the primary criterion discussed above. Examples of such sources include independent press coverage and analyst reports. Accordingly, article authors should make sure to seek out such coverage and add references to such articles to properly establish notability. <blockquote>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 ] and other comparable international stock exchanges, are inherently notable. Consensus has been that notability is not automatic in this (or any other) case. However, sufficient independent sources almost always exist for such companies, so that notability can be established using the primary criterion discussed above. Examples of such sources include independent press coverage and analyst reports. Accordingly, article authors should make sure to seek out such coverage and add references to such articles to properly establish notability.
{{hab}}

Editors coming across an article on such a company without such references are encouraged to search (or request that others search) prior to nominating for deletion, given the very high (but not ''certain'') likelihood that a publicly traded company is actually notable according to the primary criterion.</blockquote> <span style="font-family: Times;">] (] • ])</span> 16:11, 23 August 2018 (UTC) Editors coming across an article on such a company without such references are encouraged to search (or request that others search) prior to nominating for deletion, given the very high (but not ''certain'') likelihood that a publicly traded company is actually notable according to the primary criterion.</blockquote> <span style="font-family: Times;">] (] • ])</span> 16:11, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
::All that, ''long'', blockquote says is – if a company is listed there is a good chance there will be adequate sources so one should make sure to look. I looked and found none. Have you looked? Did you find any? If so will you share them? If they meet the NCORP requirements I will be glad to withdraw my nomination. Otherwise I do not understand the policy based relevance of your quote to your !vote – it has nothing to do with notability criteria and seems like an awful lot of text to ask about whether a good ] was done. ]] 16:30, 23 August 2018 (UTC) ::All that, ''long'', blockquote says is – if a company is listed there is a good chance there will be adequate sources so one should make sure to look. I looked and found none. Have you looked? Did you find any? If so will you share them? If they meet the NCORP requirements I will be glad to withdraw my nomination. Otherwise I do not understand the policy based relevance of your quote to your !vote – it has nothing to do with notability criteria and seems like an awful lot of text to ask about whether a good ] was done. ]] 16:30, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Revision as of 16:49, 23 August 2018

Cominar

New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Cominar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not enough coverage in independent, reliable sources to verify or sustian article. Fails Misplaced Pages's General Notability Guidelines and notability guidelines for organizations. The article, as it stands, has no independent, third party reliable source. All I can locate are a lot of trivial/routine coverage e.g. earnings statements and other announcements. Nothing which meets NCORP sourcing requirements. Jbh 13:13, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Jbh 13:16, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Jbh 13:16, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Jbh 13:16, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Jbh 13:16, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
Policy subsection —SerialNumber54129 16:49, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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 and other comparable international stock exchanges, are inherently notable. Consensus has been that notability is not automatic in this (or any other) case. However, sufficient independent sources almost always exist for such companies, so that notability can be established using the primary criterion discussed above. Examples of such sources include independent press coverage and analyst reports. Accordingly, article authors should make sure to seek out such coverage and add references to such articles to properly establish notability.

Editors coming across an article on such a company without such references are encouraged to search (or request that others search) prior to nominating for deletion, given the very high (but not certain) likelihood that a publicly traded company is actually notable according to the primary criterion. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 16:11, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

All that, long, blockquote says is – if a company is listed there is a good chance there will be adequate sources so one should make sure to look. I looked and found none. Have you looked? Did you find any? If so will you share them? If they meet the NCORP requirements I will be glad to withdraw my nomination. Otherwise I do not understand the policy based relevance of your quote to your !vote – it has nothing to do with notability criteria and seems like an awful lot of text to ask about whether a good WP:BEFORE was done. Jbh 16:30, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
Categories: