Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EDMI Limited

EDMI Limited

(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)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:36, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:36, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:37, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't believe this is notable, it doesn't deserve an article. st170e^talk 18:05, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

You mean the secondary sources provided are not independent? -Anee jose (talk) 00:46, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]