Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kowloon Development Company

Add links
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 speedy keep. Withdrawn, no users arguing for delete per SKCRIT#1 (non-admin closure) buidhe 23:42, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kowloon Development Company

[edit]

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

Kowloon Development Company (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)

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]
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]
@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]
  • Comment@199.66.69.88 actually in the world of Hong Kong press, featured stories are the ones that are paid to be published. Also, Apple Daily isn't a newspaper that gets paid to increase the visibility of a company (at least from my understanding) and it is an anti-rich and anti-government press which tends to negatively depict property developers, therefore the articles are not paid-written. Also, due to political pressure for the Chinese Government, no company that wants to expand in mainland China dares to put an ad on Apple Daily or ask the Daily to write promotional article (c'mon promotional articles are very obvious). WikiAviator (talk) 03:13, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm. Part of the issue for me is that WP:ORGIND is fairly new, at least in my experience (promulgated about 2 years ago after a RfC). And, in my view it’s a good bit of rulemaking because of just how Wikipedia has turned into a sieve for corporate profiles, products, etc. simply because there are a couple articles out there. But I’m of the opinion that listing on a major exchange weighs quite heavily in favor of a finding of notability, even if we don’t have the sources in hand. Based on the sources you’ve provided, even though they themselves are probably insufficient for WP:ORGIND purposes, I believe there are sufficient indica of notability if we look at the totality of the evidence. Therefore, I say weak keep. This is a situation which the guidelines don’t adequately anticipate. WP:GNG is satisfied and there are adequate indicia of notability in the sources even if we don’t have a smoking gun to get past ORGIND. 199.66.69.88 (talk) 15:45, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Horse Eye Jack: You must look at the analysis of the sources above. None of these sources meet the requirments set by WP:ORGIND so, there is no way it passes the GNG. GSS 💬 02:36, 22 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.WikiAviator (talk) 02:30, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Can you find any source that provide in-depth coverage of the topic as per WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND? GSS 💬 02:38, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@199.66.69.88: These aren't whole books about the company but they are research books that use the historic events of the company to back-up their theories (at least have one page of coverage). Hope these can help: [7][8][9][10][11][12].WikiAviator (talk) 02:49, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
None of them supports notability IMO as they do not meet the requirements set out at WP:CORPDEPTH etc. GSS 💬 03:32, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have to reiterate that the mentions of the company in the books meet "Deep or significant coverage provides an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization. in CORPDEPTH. Also, please read the comments I've posted above, they clearly explain why these sources are reliable. Could you give me a concrete reason why any of these sources aren't fulfilling the requirements of CORPDEPTH? Thanks a lot. WikiAviator (talk) 04:27, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Checking, ref 17 is a link to a phd thesis, which is ref 18, that is largely about the company. I consider that sufficient. But it shouldn't be listed twice. This is more than we usuall have for such companies. DGG ( talk ) 03:58, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Red X I withdraw my nomination in light of the additional sources espacially #18 as pointed out by DGG above. @WikiAviator:, please include the ref #18 to the article before someone close this AfD. Thank you all for your time and analysis. GSS 💬 05:27, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@GSS: Source added. Please withdraw the submission yourself (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#Procedure_for_non-administrator_close_(nominator_withdrawal)). Thanks. WikiAviator (talk) 05:54, 24 February 2020 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kowloon_Development_Company&oldid=943120467"