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. Stubifying per North8000 seems like a great compromise, but there is no consensus to do so. v/r - T P 13:57, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

S-Chips Scandals[edit]

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

Attack page. Should be speedily deleted. Seems designed to denigrate the companies it mentions and the "scandals" are not adequately sourced. This is potentially defamatory. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 15:30, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:54, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Users commenting in this discussion might also want to comment on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/P Chips Frauds and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of fraud involving Chinese stocks, which are related. Cheers. lifebaka++ 16:31, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or stubify. Companies going bankrupt? In a global recession? Corporate corruption? Not quite notable as a concept in and of itself. Add in minimal sourcing, extreme POV commentary and this is simply beyond salvage. There might be something there as a concept, but this would need to be hammered back to a stub and re-written from scratch. Ravensfire (talk) 15:06, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. —Michaela den (talk) 10:04, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:24, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. These scandals have significant media attention in Singapore. The Singapore Exchange (SGX) and the Monetary Authority of Singapore have both launched investigations. SGX has ordered trading freezes and delistings. Censoredchinese (talk) 19:24, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The S-chip companies have received coverage. But only you (the article creator) are calling it a scandal. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 15:14, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's not entirely accurate. The Straits Times is doing so as well. Censoredchinese (talk) 00:27, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cerejota (talk) 07:14, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stubbify The current article is crap; it has nothing encyclopedic in it. It's an uncited attack/rant. The "references" are just a long string of bare URL's not tied to the text. But the subject appears wp:noptable. North8000 (talk) 14:14, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The references are tied to the text. For example, one of the WSJ articles is about an S-Chip company saying that its CEO had inflated the company's sales and cash balances. Furthermore, that article mentions that some S-Chips "have run into corporate governance problems." Censoredchinese (talk) 20:10, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - agree with north8000, needs references. but keep per wp:noptable.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:36, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it's notable if there is an "S chips scandal," but how do we know if there even is one given the absence of sourcing? I ask that the administrator closing this take into consideration the substance of the article and its sourcing, the quality of arguments for and against deletion, and the amount of time that has elapsed since creation of this article. It is not going to get any better, so stubbifying is not a solution. Wikipedia is not a tip sheet for short sellers. This article belongs in a blog, not Wikipedia. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 15:52, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since some sources are professional newspapers, you might need to subscribe in order to have access to their full content. Censoredchinese (talk) 20:17, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you do not have access to the source, how can you represent what the sources say? Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 20:21, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Scandal? To quote one of the "sources", "a handful of China firms" have delisted from the SGX. Hardly a scandal or an event having wide effect on the global markets - at least according to the sources provided in the article. The major effect appears to be that investors now avoid a once darling sector of the SGX. The content of the article is simply a collection of unsupported general statements. The sources are inconsequential at best and do not support the content of the article. Perhaps a userfication is in order.

I have a question for BabbaQ and North8000, how can this be notable if the article subject lacks support? To quote WP:NOT, "Information on Wikipedia must be verifiable; if no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article. " reddogsix (talk) 15:18, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'll not pretend to understand to politics of this, but the article as it stands is an attack article. Stuartyeates (talk) 10:23, 7 September 2011 (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.