Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cogobuy

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 no consensus. Nakon 01:50, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cogobuy

[edit]
Cogobuy (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)

advertising The Banner talk 12:18, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Rahat (Message) 16:07, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Rahat (Message) 16:07, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:06, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is an encyclopedia .... Not a website advertisement service, There are a million and one ways to advertise your company and this place certainly isn't one of them. –Davey2010Talk
  • Response This is an Encyclopedia which in my opinion is the right place for Cogobuy to be included, its not my intention to create an advert rather to provide in partial information about one of the worlds biggest companies in english. Cogobuy is listed in Chinese encyclopaedias like Baidu (see link) however there is no english information making it difficult for english speakers to find out basic information about a publicly traded $5.39 billion dollar company. Like many other publicly listed companies on the New York Stock Exchange included in Wikipedia Cogobuy has many english clients and shareholders who have equity in the company. How is Cogogby different to other similar and smaller sized US and Chinese based companies currently included in Wikipedia? why should the general public, investors and potential clients not be able to find basic impartial information in an encyclopedia like Pegatron (see link). Skyworth (see link) TCL (see link) SVA (see link) ZTE (see link) etc... –

Alain Garner talk 10:29, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alain Garner talk 09:03, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately they mean nothing, You need to provide reliable sources, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 02:07, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update The linkes are not really the point, the point is many similar and smaller companies are listed on wikipedia because they have many english clients and shareholders who have equity in the company. Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia that provides impartial basic english information about those companies and I do not see how Cogobuy differs from them. I have also included links and references to the page with major news outlets that Cogobuy is featured in such as, The Wall Street Journal, The Financial Times, Bloomberg, UBS ect –Alain Garner talk 03:07, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The article reads like a marketing and promotional piece at the moment. I'd err towards delete as it stands, but if the company is truly notable, perhaps the author can rewrite the article to better demonstrate this?
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 02:00, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Message for @Alaingarner:

First of all, welcome to wikipedia (abbreviated WP), we appreciate your will to edit here. Nonetheless, there are "rules" (guidelines, in fact) to follow when editing WP. It is normal that you do not know them at first, but please listen to others who do. Do not take this deletion discussion as a personal attack; we judge articles, not people.

Guidelines are numerous, but in this case, you should read a bit about:

  1. WP:BURDEN: the person that puts up information is responsible for providing adequate sources for it; oppositely, removing material that is not sourced can be done without trying to find a source (although it is discouraged).
  2. WP:GNG and WP:CORP: even if wikipedia space is virtually (ha ha) illimited, not everything deserves and encyclopedia article. Only "notable" events, companies, people etc. get an article. What "notable" means is discussed at length in the guidelines; GNG applies to anything while CORP is specifically for companies.
  3. WP:PSTS: Sources should be carefully selected, in view of the statement they support. For instance, a company's website can be quoted to show who is their CEO, but it certainly should not be trusted about the latest controversy about their dumping of oil in a river.
  4. WP:OTHERSTUFF: analogy reasoning between articles (such as "XXX is less notable than YYY, yet is has a page, so YYY should have a page too") is usually not valid. WP is very vast and very incomplete, hence many (probably most) articles are violating the guidelines in some way; there is no priority to fix 'this' rather than 'that', so when 'that' is under consideration, do not talk about 'this'.
  5. WP:COI: if you have a personal interest in the subject of an article, it is best to avoid editing it. If you are working for a company, if you go to golf with their CEO, if they killed your parents in an industrial accident, or if you oppose them because of your political or religious views, your judgement is most likely clouded. Even if you try your best to stay neutral, it can transpire.
Tigraan (talk) 10:21, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep with clean up, and no objection to WP:TNT to nuke out the promotionalism. Independent sources are available especially among the Chinese language press [1][2][3] (though mostly as a stock). 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 11:29, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • Thanks I am new to writing Wikipedia articles and wanted to thank you all for your help, I will have another go at writing the page and improving it and intend to pay back your kindness buy contributing to other articles and helping other new users, Thanks Alain –Alain Garner talk 0:49, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 02:07, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: A company's capitalization value does not make it notable. Unfortunately, company profiles and stock information don't qualify as significant coverage (WP:GNG). The sources currently in the article are all press releases or company profiles. Presence as a publicly traded stock also does not grant notability (WP:LISTED). ― Padenton |☎  01:19, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your points are correct, but I have a hard time believing that no notability sources exist for a $5b non-banking company. The financial size may be irrelevant for GNG, but not for journalists that produce GNG material; I suspect there are plenty of sources in Chinese. Tigraan (talk) 13:19, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Point of discussio here is not the companies notability but the fact that the article is an advertisement. And okay, a notable company would not feel the need to advertise in an encyclopaedia... The Banner talk 13:38, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If I am not mistaken, Padenton is disputing the notability. I agree with the advertising problem (hence my WP:TNT !vote). Tigraan (talk) 13:47, 24 March 2015 (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/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Cogobuy&oldid=1078460387"