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, certainly no consensus to delete. NawlinWiki 20:48, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Greek companies[edit]

Don't delete the list of italian companies. It is organized by industry, whereas companies of italy is not.

I am nominating this and every other company in Category:Lists of companies by country for deletion. A category "Companies of X" (where X is a country) already exists. The larger lists are nothing but collections of links, and there is no qualifying statement regarding size or value of business before it can be included. At least the category will only include companies that meet WP notability guidelines. MSJapan 06:07, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following pages for the same reasons of duplication because a "Companies of X" category already exists:

Keep - Looking through these, especially those of less developed countries, there are hundreds of links (sometimes more than blue ones) that would be lost if these articles were deleted. For some, such as List of Canadian companies, and other lists with companies on which we almost all have articles on, deletion is probably favorable, but for the vast majority of these, it is not. — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 06:58, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't you think that if a company is redlinked, it is likely not in line with WP:N and thus doesn't belong on WP anyway? My feeling is that the links retained by the cats will certainly be notable and useful, as they will be limited to those companies that have articles on them (and thus those companies that have had objective news coverage, business reports, etc., as opposed to say, my neighbor's kid's landscaping business being listed as a US-based business). MSJapan 07:11, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't feel that way because there are plenty of companies out there that I know are notable but aren't on Wikipedia. This is especially the case for the lists that singled out. If there's a redlink on List of Canadian companies, then it probably has a high chance of being NN. This doesn't really cross over to those lists where redlinks dominate, though. For instance, on the Ethiopian page, I know of a number of companies on that list that are redlinked and very notable, and even more that aren't even on the page, some of which are even more notable. I really don't mind the deletion of the former category, as I said on the deletion page, but deletion of those that fall in the latter would result in the loss of all those redlinks that would eventually become articles. Those lists can often be the starting point for anons and low-level contributors. — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 07:23, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Also, I have several of these pages watchlisted because of RC patrol - they are link magnets, with a vast majority of the companies being non-notable. No need to have them when the relevant categories already exist.xC | ☎ 07:33, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - You can tell by each company just how notable they area. (E.g. are they privately or publicaly held.) IF they are public they are probably notable enough. Since they make enough not to become delisted in their native market. OR Do they have a history section. OR Do they explain their importance for their own native market etc. CaribDigita 07:36, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep — We've just been through this a couple weeks ago at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Japanese companies. These lists are each notable in their own right, and List of Japanese companies is a very good example of how informative and encyclopedic all of these lists can potentially become.--Endroit 08:18, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Endroit 08:26, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. These lists are far too arbitrary and extremely difficult to verify and maintain. We would be far better with lists that have a more specific focus -- Barrylb 08:47, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but some or many of the lists may need to be cleaned up. For example, the List of New Zealand companies separates out the companies in the NZX 50 stock exchange index, which are certainly notable and should have articles, and the rest, which need to have some justification for articles. The article could be expanded to include some measure of capitalisation of each company, with a cut-off point, so very small companies are excluded.-gadfium 08:48, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I would be happy to see an article List of NZX 50 Companies because it would be meaningful and easy to maintain. A general list is not meaningful and not easy to maintain and not very useful. -- Barrylb 08:55, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The criteria obviously can differ depending on each nation's wiki-project. But having a list for each nation makes these a very notable and encyclopedic group of lists. You should be discussing how to apply similar standards across the board, NOT arbitrarily & unconditionally delete all such lists like you're trying to do here.--Endroit 09:05, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't find these lists useful because the criteria for inclusion are not clear on any of them. I have no idea what I will find on the page I can't see the lists ever being complete and I don't know how to make them complete. If we keep these lists we need to have clear criteria specified on each list. -- Barrylb 09:46, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look at his example. It provides a useful index of clearly notable companies both with and without articles. This is the very purpose of such lists. I don't see the need to be finicky about additions; with some sense in keeping the dreck out (as in the Japanese case), it is clear that these lists can work perfectly well. Rebecca 11:34, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletions. -- gadfium 08:48, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If this had been on the Australian one, I'd have probably voted delete, due to the amount of crud on the list. However, reading the arguments of Endroit, and to a lesser extent, Yom, I'm convinced we should keep the lot. Endroit's example of List of Japanese companies is an extremely good example as to just how useful these lists can be; there are many redlinks on that list that are very clearly notable, and I suspect this would be the case if we actually cleaned up many of the other lists and got rid of the dreck. As such, these really should be cleaned up, rather than deleted. Rebecca 09:12, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve, or move under the related WikiProject. Deleting all of these pages at once is not in the best interest of Wikipedia. I have looked at the lists for Greece, Australia, NZ and Japan and cant see any compelling reason for them to be deleted. John Vandenberg 09:36, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. Lists are of notable subjects and serves an encyclopedic purpose. Lists could be expanded to include more material, such as number of employees, annual earnings, type of company, etc., and then converted to sortable lists. This would include much more information than their respective categories, and would help in researching economic characteristics of a nation. This counterpoints the nominator's argument that they are redundant to categories. But before I close my opinion, I have to ask: if this type of list was discussed before, and the result was keep (not no consensus), why are they still being nominated? If doubt arises over their content or criteria, shouldn't this be discussed here first, and then nominate for deletion based on previous consensus? - Mtmelendez ^{(Talk|UB|Home)} 12:26, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Because the guideline isn't going to make a difference without maintenance, and at the very least no one is maintaining these lists in general. Not only that, your example is one of the better overall examples on the list of noms, but people know about Japanese companies and know what's what, even without reading the target language. Can the same be said for Estonia and Poland? Maybe, maybe not. Some of the lists are nothing but lists of 100+ links; other are five links, and four are red. So how do we set across the board criteria that work for everyone? (I think we can't). I think there are criteria, and they are very rarely adhered to from what I saw looking at all the lists (I tagged by hand). Therefore, I think it's better to lose the lists and leave the information on companies we know meet WP guidelines in their own cat. Also, if there is a deletion consensus, what's the difference? You can't delete some countries and not others. MSJapan 23:09, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response: If there is a criteria, then it should be enforced through discussion or changed until consensus is reached. If not, then the criteria should be discussed and duly included in Wikipedia policies and guidelines. We should not simply delete all articles until an alternative arises, especially if previous consensus is reached that such lists are useful and of notable subjects. If they can be improved, then they should be kept. If they are not currently being improved, then we should bring this matter to the attention of the community (try WikiProject Business and Economics), not delete them outright. If you believe these lists are unmaintainable due to the large number of companies, then maybe we should take the approach of List of HIV-positive people, which only includes sourced additions while disclosing the fact that the list is not, and never will be complete. The sources could be evaluated to make sure they're independent and reliable. Would that answer your concerns? - Mtmelendez ^{(Talk|UB|Home)} 23:23, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As noted by Yom, these lists can be of great help for less developed countries. And please keep in mind that being a redlink doesn't mean that the topic is WP:N, especially regarding continents like Africa.--Aldux 12:35, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't understand why people think these lists are "encyclopedic." I someone going to research one day "companies in Taiwan that begin with the letter C"? These would be properly handled by categories. These are nowhere even near comprehensive, nor is there any way they ever could be. There are over twenty million people on Taiwan, yet there are only about a hundred or so companies on its list, and only ten companies "started by Taiwanese?" There's no criteria for size, market cap, or any other criteria for inclusion on the lists. eaolson 13:19, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're right,Companies in X that begin with the letter C isn't encyclopedic, but that type of list isn't nominated for this AfD, and if you have concerns over list criteria, it should be discussed at the proper Wikipedia guideline. These articles are lists of company by nations, which is directly tied to economic topics of countries; therefore, encyclopedic. - Mtmelendez ^{(Talk|UB|Home)} 21:09, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. (again) Didn't we just do this a few weeks ago? Since the last AFD I've tidied up several of these lists, removing spam and graffiti. Overall they are either actively maintained or pretty free from spam. I keep three of the lists on my watchlist. Yeah they are link magnets, but there are also plenty of productive edits. In some cases the lists are being used as work lists for articles that need to be created. I plan to do the same with List of Cambodian companies which was deleted once at the end of 2005 (sigh). I'll create the article initially as a list of red links from a good business directory. This function can't be duplicated by a category. A good example of the lists being used this way is at List of Barbadian companies where I had this discussion with the editor watchlisting the article [1]. C'mon MSJapan be a pal and withdraw the nomination - the project needs these lists and the subjects are notable. Paxse 13:38, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That would be me- on the Barbadian list to back up the claims by the above person. We did indeed have a discussion about it. As soon as I fill in articles I drop their link. But it is also there incase someone else from Barbados should come across and want to do an article.... Now that I have time off from work today. Go Fourth! I'm going to take the chance to fill in a few more articles. CaribDigita 15:25, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Keep up the excellent work :) I'm too scared to recreate the Cambodian list article - it will be deleted for being too brown/poor/communist/3rd world - choose one. Paxse 18:29, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. These lists are not equivalent to their categories; many contain valid redlinks that do concern notable companies, or other added value in the form of additional commentary information (e.g. company names in the native script). Dekimasu よ! 06:04, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all They are merely directory listings. DrKiernan 07:19, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Er, how? Rebecca 07:55, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Taking "List of Greek companies" as an example, it is an alphabetical list of companies and their web-sites, i.e. it is a web directory.
Strong Keep. Haven't read the other comments yet, but they are only links to outside websites when editors allow them to be. India is constantly patrolled by Paxse and myself and links only to already established wikiarticles. I was looking for just such a list when I stumbled on India's and can say that I found it useful. I'd like to extend my patrolling to some more countries, but I'm a strong keep for the genre. And I agree with Endroit: there should be a policy that explains what stays and is appropriate for each List, such as we have on India. --LeyteWolfer 09:41, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per comments by Yom and Paxse above.--Vivenot 11:56, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Yom, Rebecca, John Vandenberg, and Paxse.--JayJasper 13:06, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per User:desean81
Keep. I had to struggle with the "link magnets" problem as described above but this can be overcome by making the policy of Wikipedia clear to other editors, on the talk page, like here [2], and on the edit page itself, like here [3]. I hope it helps SSZ 16:48, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I found this discussion because List of Chadian companies is one of only two pages that link to my just created article on the Chadian parastatal that provides landline and Internet service to the entire country (the other link is Chad). So I suppose I'm with Yom, as well. - BanyanTree 03:24, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. These are quite useful and interesting pages actually.. Icsunonove 05:30, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment One of the lists is eligible for deletion under WP:CSD#G4: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of British companies. DrKiernan 13:09, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, however it would need to be 'substantially identical' to the June 2006 version to qualify for speedy - as the page history wasn't merged it's difficult to tell.Paxse 15:20, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The deleted version kind of looked like the page does now, after my edit. DrKiernan 16:13, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's actually an improvement - you may have to change your vote :) Congratulations on the new mop btw. Paxse 16:27, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

:) Thanks, I'll stick with my lost cause, you never know how things will pan out in the end! DrKiernan 17:02, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Singapore companies is another ongoing Afd for one of the articles in this category. John Vandenberg 13:19, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Redundant with category is not a valid delete rationale. These lists contain important encyclopedic information. If there are problems with individual articles in this block nomination thay can be addressed separately. AndyJones 13:46, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Proposal - I am currently working on establishing a WikiProject for Companies, and feel that these lists would fall under the remit of that. I also note that there are lots of opinions and Wikipedia policies on either side of this argument (I'll admit that I'm part on the Delete side). Would it be possible to close this AFD to allow the project to get started and reach consensus within that structure on whether we want to support these lists or not? I'm not sure if that is possible under this process but thought it was worth a shot. If it is acceptable I'll have the project up and running before the end of the weekend. Richc80 19:56, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Bduke 07:07, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, not redundant with categories unless there are some which completely lack annotation and structuring. I note with puzzlement that List of South Korean companies has reached that deletion-worthy state after this AFD began as a result of "cleanup", hopefully this is only the first stage. Kappa 07:16, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All Lists, especially the List of New Zealand companies, which has important information about the listing of New Zealand companies that explains how legal companies get listed in the companies register. These lists serve as useful lists to identify what Wikipedia has not yet written about and give naming convention guidance to new editors as well as allowing information about a country's business sector to be condensed into a single article. Categories can never replace these lists because a category require an article to be written. Lists identify things that are unable to be categorised. We may want to put things on these lists that we would never want to have an article written about. -- Cameron Dewe 12:09, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm a previously-listed Keeper, but your distinction between categories and lists does differ from mine. This may not be the time and/or place for this dicussion, but my view is that lists such as for companies are naturally link-magnets, both for URLs and for not-notables. Now, New Zealand has a very concise statement regarding what is notable (the title of 'Limited'), but most countries do not; however, there should still be a list dictated by notability for all countries. Otherwise, the Mom & Pop company down the street can easily post themselves with a redlink under the List of Companies in Country X and the list becomes unwieldy and worthless. I've even seen multi-nationals listed in each country they do business. Now, it may seem arbitrary to some, but on the three lists I patrol, I've inserted policies (that haven't yet been challenged) that a company must first have a Wiki article completed before it may be added to the list. URLs and company descriptions are right out (except in the latter case where a list may have started and been maintained not alphabetically, but categorically). Multi-nationals are not to be listed, unless their primarily- (and singularly-)based in that country. I imagine that's a source of frustration for a small business owner that cannot get an article listed for notability reasons, but -as often stated- Wikipedia is not a search engine, and neither should be the lists. My two cents. [stepping down] --LeyteWolfer 14:20, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I would agree that some criteria to limit the list is probably needed. For example, companies should be publically registered or listed, have shares traded or issue bonds, etc. for investments or be capitalised in excess of some value, like $xx million. The exact criteria might vary from country to country, but the list should identify the top xxx counties on the share market or all companies valued or capitalised over some large value. -- Cameron Dewe 11:35, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All. These appear to be proper navigation pages and would therefore meet WP:LISTS. Assize 12:42, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Clean some of them up, but definitely a keep. Jauerback 16:05, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Some of these lists do contain useful information, but such information should be provided in the individual company articles. For companies that have articles, I see no value in it's entry on such a list. If I search for a particular company, I want to find its article, not a list. For companies for which no article exists, a stub article should be created rather than adding the name to a list. Zubdub 04:51, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- How would you search for Greek insurance companies? Kappa 23:17, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Wikipedia is not a directory. Zubdub 05:12, 11 July 200 (UTC)
    - How do you balance WP:NOT#DIR with WP:LIST? I would say, by my understanding, that in order for a list to be informative by its existance, it needs to be in the suggested format of themes, such as List of Iranian companies‎ does by industry. I haven't 'fixed' any lists in such a way, but do patrol some that are in that format. Definitely informative when presented this way and negates having to create lists for each industry in each country. --LeyteWolfer 07:47, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Looking only at List of Australian companies, I don't see anything that can't be adequately performed by a category. If there was some sort of sourced, summary information about each company (turnover? staff? founding year? sector of operation?) then I would say keep.

But I won't !vote either way for such a blanket listing.Ga rr ie 06:00, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Major companies are a significant part of a country's economy, and a list over the big ones are a perfectly valid way of covering this aspect. Per WP:LIST, information is a reason for having a list. The list might also serve som navigational purpose, and for those lists with redlinks, they serve a developmental purpose. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:53, 11 July 2007 (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.