Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EDMI Limited: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
| Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
* [[WP:LISTED]] clearly states that companies listed in major stock exchanges are inherently notable. Now if your point is that the Singapore Exchange is not a major stock exchange, then please see [[List_of_stock_exchanges#Major_stock_exchanges]]. It comes in top 21. I believe that now enough secondary sources are provided too. These are the aspects of [[WP:ORG]] met by the article. --[[User:Anee jose|Anee jose]] ([[User talk:Anee jose|talk]]) 06:13, 14 October 2014 (UTC) |
* [[WP:LISTED]] clearly states that companies listed in major stock exchanges are inherently notable. Now if your point is that the Singapore Exchange is not a major stock exchange, then please see [[List_of_stock_exchanges#Major_stock_exchanges]]. It comes in top 21. I believe that now enough secondary sources are provided too. These are the aspects of [[WP:ORG]] met by the article. --[[User:Anee jose|Anee jose]] ([[User talk:Anee jose|talk]]) 06:13, 14 October 2014 (UTC) |
||
::That is not exactly what it says; It essentially says that it ''can be'' but it still needs sufficient independent sources to indicate it is notable. I still don't see that. [[User:331dot|331dot]] ([[User talk:331dot|talk]]) 09:37, 14 October 2014 (UTC) |
::That is not exactly what it says; It essentially says that it ''can be'' but it still needs sufficient independent sources to indicate it is notable. I still don't see that. [[User:331dot|331dot]] ([[User talk:331dot|talk]]) 09:37, 14 October 2014 (UTC) |
||
:::You mean the secondary sources provided are not independent? -[[User:Anee jose|Anee jose]] ([[User talk:Anee jose|talk]]) 00:46, 15 October 2014 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 00:46, 15 October 2014
- EDMI Limited (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)
I'm referring this article to AfD as the creator has added some link sources for notability. Community will decide. Oz\InterAct 11:51, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 16:36, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 16:36, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 16:37, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
- Delete I don't believe this is notable, it doesn't deserve an article. st170etalk 18:05, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
- Delete. No indication of notability or significance; not sure what aspect of WP:ORG is met here. Not all multinational corporations are notable just because they are multinational corporations. 331dot (talk) 09:28, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
- I kindly request you to see WP:LISTED. Its a public limited company listed in Singapore Exchange. I have added some links which I felt relevant. Few more secondary sources are - [1] [2] [3]. In energy sector, the company is notable and popular as other metering companies like itron and Landis+Gyr. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anee jose (talk • contribs) 05:38, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
- WP:LISTED clearly states that companies listed in major stock exchanges are inherently notable. Now if your point is that the Singapore Exchange is not a major stock exchange, then please see List_of_stock_exchanges#Major_stock_exchanges. It comes in top 21. I believe that now enough secondary sources are provided too. These are the aspects of WP:ORG met by the article. --Anee jose (talk) 06:13, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
- That is not exactly what it says; It essentially says that it can be but it still needs sufficient independent sources to indicate it is notable. I still don't see that. 331dot (talk) 09:37, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
- You mean the secondary sources provided are not independent? -Anee jose (talk) 00:46, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
- That is not exactly what it says; It essentially says that it can be but it still needs sufficient independent sources to indicate it is notable. I still don't see that. 331dot (talk) 09:37, 14 October 2014 (UTC)