Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EDMI Limited

EDMI Limited

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. st170e^talk 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)

Under References, two of the listings are from the company itself, and the other two are simple business directories which don't indicate to me what is notable about this company. I'm not sure what purpose the external links serve but if they are meant to be references they are not used in the article. 331dot (talk) 08:26, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I was under the impression that external links are also serving the purpose of references. I have modified the article. Thanks for pointing out the issue. Please have a look now. --Anee jose (talk) 10:08, 15 October 2014 (UTC)