Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kowloon Development Company: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 02:30, 22 February 2020

Kowloon Development Company

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Neither the given links nor my searches are showing anything to demonstrate notability. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:GNG. GSS ^💬 13:10, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. GSS ^💬 13:10, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. GSS ^💬 13:10, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep per sources could be found to verify its notability.WikiAviator (talk) 13:14, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Which source establish notability under WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH? GSS ^💬 13:17, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I’m definitely not seeing the requisite sources to establish notability, either in this article or in its sister article on zhwiki. Whether they exist on the web, I can’t really tell because I’m not that good at Chinese. But from what I can understand, I don’t see WP:SIGCOV. All that said, this might not be so surprising for a company founded in the 60s; if there is significant coverage it could be both offline and in Chinese. If so, I urge the page creator to focus on providing that coverage. Otherwise I think it is extremely likely this page will be deleted at the end of 7 days. 199.66.69.88 (talk) 14:25, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment@199.66.69.88 @GSS I've found credible sources by prominent newspapers in Chinese that have whole articles about the projects of Kowloon Development Company. Sources: [1][2][3][4][5][6]. They are all reliable sources that can verify notability of the company. Therefore the article complies with WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH.WikiAviator (talk) 14:35, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment added sources to article. Should be able to meet notability guidelines.WikiAviator (talk) 14:59, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WikiAviator, searching for "九龍建業有限公司" in the sources you provided above I found nothing. What they are about? GSS ^💬 15:13, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@GSS Hong Kong press sometimes refer the company as 九龍建業 or even 九建. Therefore you may find nothing if you search for 九龍建業有限公司.WikiAviator (talk) 15:44, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In that case you need to see WP:ROUTINE, none of these sources establish notability under WP:CORPDEPTH. GSS ^💬 15:49, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@GSS: I should say that it's pretty likely that SIGCOV exists here in light of the fact that this company is listed on a major exchange. While being listed on a major exchange isn't a free pass to WP:CORP, I think it's pretty likely we should find enough. Here I provide analysis of the references WikiAviator provided:

The link to Apple Daily, I can't really understand. To me it looks like trade press and might be long enough to satisfy typical GNG. However, there may be problems anticipated by WP:ORGIND, given this is trade press: While feature stories from leading trade magazines may be used where independence is clear, there is a presumption against the use of coverage in trade magazines to establish notability. This is because businesses often use these publications to increase their visibility. This definitely isn't a feature story, so I don't think it counts. I can't say whether, if not for the ORGIND issue, that it would count.

The analysis in Hong Kong Economic Journal does not look like the "trivial coverage" anticipated by WP:CORPDEPTH, even though it's primarily a discussion of their financial performance rather than something more "meaty" from which you could write an article. The problem for me is the same ORGIND issue that plagues the Apple Daily source above. If not for the ORGIND issue, I would say this one counts.

The announcement in Ming Pao looks like fairly trivial coverage to me, like a reprint of a press release with little if any added coverage. What I can't tell is if what I see is the whole article or if it's partially paywalled. But what I can see right now says this one probably shouldn't count.

The announcement at Finet just looks like a reprint of a press release to me, announcing a financial transaction. I don't think it helps with WP:CORPDEPTH.

The article at Hong Kong Economic Times is an interview article with a named author attributed. However, the same WP:ORGIND problem comes up here. This doesn't look like a feature story. If it were not for the ORGIND issue, I would probably count this one too.

The second Apple Daily article is paywalled for me and I can't read it.

So, I appreciate the sources, but I think we may need something more significant. Are there any books discussing this company? Or major feature stories in the trade press? See WP:ORGIND for what I mean by "feature story". 199.66.69.88 (talk) 16:59, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with the addition of more sources the page now passes WP:GNG when it did not appear to at nomination. All things considered the company appears to be highly notable. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:37, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @GSS if. you find on Google books you may not find whole books about the company, but you can still find many finance-related Chinese bookw have coverage of the keyword "九龍建業", mostly mentioning it as an example to back-up the theories and arguements in the book.

@@ Line 18: / Line 18: @@
 ::::::{{ping|GSS}} I should say that it's pretty likely that SIGCOV exists here in light of the fact that this company is listed on a major exchange. While being listed on a major exchange isn't a free pass to [[WP:CORP]], I think it's pretty likely we should find enough. Here I provide analysis of the references WikiAviator provided:{{parabr}}The [https://hk.appledaily.com/finance/20200214/GY2GQHL6F55FDLXS5JQTTOJIJA/ link to ''Apple Daily''], I can't really understand. To me it looks like trade press and might be long enough to satisfy typical GNG. However, there may be problems anticipated by [[WP:ORGIND]], given this is trade press: {{tq|While feature stories from leading trade magazines may be used where independence is clear, there is a presumption against the use of coverage in trade magazines to establish notability. This is because businesses often use these publications to increase their visibility.}} This definitely isn't a feature story, so I don't think it counts. I can't say whether, if not for the ORGIND issue, that it would count.{{parabr}}The [https://www2.hkej.com/instantnews/market/article/2249749 analysis in ''Hong Kong Economic Journal''] does not look like the "trivial coverage" anticipated by [[WP:CORPDEPTH]], even though it's primarily a discussion of their financial performance rather than something more "meaty" from which you could write an article. The problem for me is the same ORGIND issue that plagues the ''Apple Daily'' source above. If not for the ORGIND issue, I would say this one counts.{{parabr}}The [https://news.mingpao.com/pns/經濟/article/20191017/s00004/1571249451561/九建樓盤擬取消「呼吸plan」 announcement in ''Ming Pao''] looks like fairly trivial coverage to me, like a reprint of a press release with little if any added coverage. What I can't tell is if what I see is the whole article or if it's partially paywalled. But what I can see right now says this one probably shouldn't count.{{parabr}}The [https://www.finet.hk/newscenter/news_content/5d4fac8ebde0b3270a21d42a announcement at Finet] just looks like a reprint of a press release to me, announcing a financial transaction. I don't think it helps with [[WP:CORPDEPTH]].{{parabr}}The [https://ps.hket.com/article/2495476 article at ''Hong Kong Economic Times''] is an interview article with a named author attributed. However, the same [[WP:ORGIND]] problem comes up here. This doesn't look like a feature story. If it were not for the ORGIND issue, I would probably count this one too.{{parabr}}The [https://hk.appledaily.com/finance/20191016/A6QQHBMLQ5RR7MQBJMP2WC5V3Y/ second ''Apple Daily''] article is paywalled for me and I can't read it.{{parabr}}So, I appreciate the sources, but I think we may need something more significant. Are there any books discussing this company? Or major feature stories in the trade press? See [[WP:ORGIND]] for what I mean by "feature story". [[Special:Contributions/199.66.69.88|199.66.69.88]] ([[User talk:199.66.69.88|talk]]) 16:59, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 *'''Keep''' with the addition of more sources the page now passes [[WP:GNG]] when it did not appear to at nomination. All things considered the company appears to be highly notable. [[User:Horse Eye Jack|Horse Eye Jack]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye Jack|talk]]) 18:37, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
+*'''Comment''' @{{U|GSS}} if. you find on Google books you may not find whole books about the company, but you can still find many finance-related Chinese bookw have coverage of the keyword "九龍建業", mostly mentioning it as an example to back-up the theories and arguements in the book.