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. Well, if analyst reports are considered proof of notability by the pertinent notability guideline, that would be a reason to keep until the guideline is changed - and that would require a discussion elsewhere. Also, Matthew hk's sources have not been refuted by the delete camp. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:29, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sateri[edit]

Sateri (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)

Routine company. Fails WP:ORGIND, WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:NCORP and WP:ORGCRIT particularly. scope_creep^Talk 11:19, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 12:57, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 12:57, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 12:57, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - not a high-profile company, but I did find some third-party coverage attesting to its notability, see Credit Suisse research and CEO Magazine. CEO Magazine says Sateri is the world's top producer of viscose fibre. Credit Suisse estimated its 2012 revenue at US$ 1.4 billion, and presumably higher by now. That's notable enough by my standard. -Zanhe (talk) 03:50, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • That CEO magazine article is literally a press release reprint - google phrases from it - David Gerard (talk) 08:19, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete without prejudice - no sourcing available and the AFD's had long enough to find any that isn't press release reprints - David Gerard (talk) 08:19, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
  
  From Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Publicly traded corporations (my bolding):

  There has been considerable discussion over time whether publicly traded corporations, or at least publicly traded corporations listed on major stock exchanges such as the NYSE and other comparable international stock exchanges, are inherently notable. Consensus has been that notability is not automatic in this (or any other) case. However, sufficient independent sources almost always exist for such companies, so that notability can be established using the primary criterion discussed above. Examples of such sources include independent press coverage and analyst reports. Accordingly, article authors should make sure to seek out such coverage and add references to such articles to properly establish notability.

  
  
  Analyst reports
  
  
  1. Credit Suisse published a 18 January 2011 analyst report at https://research-doc.credit-suisse.com/docView?language=ENG&source=ulg&format=PDF&document_id=868415111&serialid=RlW61pjP9ociuBYHuruLbq1cyvloQeGJbyddNySNO4U%3D^{Internet Archive} written by analysts Kenny Lau and Adrian Chan that profiles Sateri. The report summarizes what the company does:

     Sateri is one of the largest manufacturers of specialty cellulose products in the world. Its specialty cellulose product line is one of the broadest among the major producers in the industry and includes both rayon grades and specialty grades of dissolving wood pulp, and viscose staple fibres, the downstream products of rayon grades of pulp.

     The report further notes:

     The key risks include: (1) macroeconomic-related risks, which may result in substantially lower selling prices of Sateri’s products; (2) expansion risks, as Sateri may look to expand aggressively beyond the current expansion plans; (3) competition risks; (4) acquisition risks; (5) customer concentration risks; (6) currency mismatch risks; (7) raw material risks; (8) reputational risks; (9) unexpected weather patterns, and key staff changes.

     There is more information about the risks on page 48 of the report.
  2. CITIC Securities published a 3 September 2012 analyst report at https://www.citics.com.hk/file/research/6760_CSI%20Equity%20Daily%203%20Sep%2012.pdf^{Internet Archive} written by analysts Wallace Cheng and Lili Huang that profiles Sateri.

     The report notes:

     An integrated wood pulp and viscose fiber producer. The Company has established an integrated industrial chain that encompasses “timberland – dissolving wood pulp (DWP) facility – viscose staple fiber (VSF) facility”, boasting approximately 150,000 hectares of plantation land. The designed production capacity for its DWP and VSF facility is 485,000 tonnes and 160,000 tonnes respectively. The Company's self-sufficient capability on the raw materials of VSF is strong.

     The report further notes:

     Potential risks: demand for textile and apparel, which is the key end-user in the downstream of the DWP industrial chain, will remain sluggish. The Company's new 200,000-tonnes VSF capacity in Putian, Fujian cannot be put into production as scheduled.

  3. Sun Hung Kai & Co. published a 26 November 2010 analyst report here^{Internet Archive} written by analyst Daniel So that profiles Sateri. The report notes that key concerns are:

     Involved in numerous litigation and legal proceedings, which the company says have arisen from normal business activities. These include civil, tax and labor cases, with 565 claims as at end-June 2010. Where the risk of loss has been evaluated as probable, the aggregate value of the claims is US$9.4m.
     
     Currency risk. Depreciation of the reporting currency USD could hurt profits, as this would increase operational costs, which are mainly denominated in Brazilian Real (BRL) and RMB.

  There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Sateri to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

  Cunard (talk) 01:34, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Analyst reports are not WP:RSes - even if you add lots of words of puffery (linking WP:RS three times) to your claims about them. Do you have RSes?

And you're doing the filibustering ill-formatted wall of text thing again, that you previously said you'd stop doing. See other editors concerns as stated on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vertcoin (3rd nomination), where it became clear that you doing this was becoming a behavioural issue, and it was causing problems in AFDs. You said that at least you'd put them in collapse-tags - but you seem not to be bothering any more, e.g. [1] and on this AFD - David Gerard (talk) 10:48, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Analyst reports are considered reliable sources. Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Publicly traded corporations says (my bolding): "However, sufficient independent sources almost always exist for such companies, so that notability can be established using the primary criterion discussed above. Examples of such sources include independent press coverage and analyst reports."

  I do not use collapse tags when I am posting only three sources. I use collapse tags only when I am posting more than three sources with sizable quotes (example here).

  Cunard (talk) 15:49, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Trust me when I say this style of posting is still obnoxious and filibustering enough in effect to constitute problematic editing - David Gerard (talk) 22:33, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and merge with Bracell Limited. Financial Times, WSJ, Reuters. Basically it is weird to run back to back Afd with parallel articles. Bracell Limited, formerly known as Sateri, is a former listed company on the Main Board of HKEX (SEHK). I don't have time to dig out Brazilian source yet but it seem the company have news coverage from well known secondary source. Matthew hk (talk) 02:56, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge which way? - David Gerard (talk) 06:42, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sateri group still use Sateri as their trading name in China. Sateri seem the common name of the group despite the official name of the (former?) holding company had changed to Bracell Limited. A quick read of press release, in the eve of privatization, it seem some Sateri business was separated from Bracell Limited (formerly Sateri Holdings Limited), but the notable subject was the former listed company Sateri Holdings, seem better use "Sateri " as WP:Article titles (as common name), and don't carry much original reason on the fate of the company after privatization, which news article seem significantly smaller for company that went private from public. Matthew hk (talk) 07:03, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Greetings, dear Cunard. Could you please at least cut down on the use of the 'li', 'br', and 'ol' commands? The text gets really too long and cluttered and the AfD becomes even more strenuous. I consider AfD to be one of the most important processes in Wikipedia since, after all, it involves the "death penalty" for articles. So I believe we should always be trying to present our points the best way possible, which includes the laconic way. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 18:13, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment It worries this question of using the clause re: analyst reports to establish notability in WP:RS. It is essentially stating that every public traded company will have an article on Wikipedia, even companies which are inherently not notable, e.g. mom an pop companies that may have some kind of product that they sell, perhaps they have inherited it from their parents, and they offers shares in the companies, in which there is reams of examples of that type. Another example would be startup that has developed a product, offering shares again, might only 10 people in the company, but an exciting, in your face, or trending, or new technology product, but all non notable by any WP notability criteria. In the UK there is 714000 people working in the UK banking industry, that is the highest level its been since 2007. Essentially what has been said here, is that roughly 1.07% of the UK population or 2.23% of the UK working population is deciding via analyst reports (the percentage is much smaller as only certain institutions produce them) what public traded organisation is notable, when all other policy criteria are taken into effect, like WP:NCORP, WP:ORGIND, WP:ORGCRIT, for an example UK company. We need to have look at this. As an aside Cunard ref's only deal with the company finances, not the company as a whole. They also don't satisfy WP:ORGIND as the banks have a Vested Interest in producing these reports for their customers. scope_creep^Talk 19:09, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @Scope creep: You're seriously underestimating the challenge of getting a company listed on one of the major stock exchanges. It's a hugely expensive process involving teams of bankers, lawyers, accountants, and auditors and normally costs millions of dollars, and then maybe a million dollars annually just to get your quarterly and annual financial reports produced, audited, and published. Becoming a publicly listed on major stock exchanges such as NYSE, NASDAQ or HKEX is an inherent indicator of notability, and that's why we have the guideline WP:LISTED. It's definitely not something for your mom and pop companies. -Zanhe (talk) 19:49, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Zanhe: I was thinking about them at all. Your talking about premier listings. There is now a large number of exchange outfits that track listings for companies that perhaps are only valued at a couple of million or less and for example, may be developing new types of software e.g. block ledger tech and can potentially offer huge returns. There is quite a number of these now, and the startup scene is now so big now in the UK that banks are truly cognizant of this. That's not the point I'm trying to make. The point I'm try to make that a small percentage of the population is deciding what is notable for the majority. Obviously somebody has added it as notability clause, but not done the work determine how valid they are. There is no link between how well a companies finances are and how notable the company or/and how it well it is doing. There is no causal link. There is companies that con their auditors so well and vice versa it make them look that their doing well when in fact they are a crock, so in this instance the notability criteria is hollow. It has no standing. The analyst reports are only really accurate when you assume the audit is good, the company is good standing, genuily good standing and they are not trying to con you or con the auditor. Look at KPMG in the UK. It just been fined for providing a bad audit of some outfit and they have a history of doing this. They all do it, making the company look better that it actually is.

The reason I posted this was because I wanted a conversation about a company which has almost universal reports coming from people like the WWF, Greenpeace and human right outfits that report this company and its parent for huge amounts of deforestation in Indonesia. Its called out by numerous agencies including the European Unions for wholesale bio destruction. As the result of this all the sub companies and the main company articles have been a continual spam target and they have been using Wikipedia to promote their companies against the flak from these environmental companies. So, does the company only need good finances or be the biggest, to be notable. scope_creep^Talk 20:29, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're confusing highly regulated major stock exchanges (NYSE, NASDAQ, LSE, HKEX, etc.) with largely unregulated OTC exchanges (see Over-the-counter (finance)). Companies traded on OTC are generally not notable, but those traded on major exchanges are. Also, Wikipedia does not WP:RIGHT WRONGS. We try to determine whether a topic is notable, but do not judge whether it deserves to be. -Zanhe (talk) 05:27, 2 May 2019 (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.