Talk:POSCO India

Corporate promotion tag

I will like to help clean this article. I have read it and fail to see the good faith claims of corporate promotion. Please explain where in this article is such promotion? ApostleVonColorado (talk) 16:39, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Posco India and social issues

User:Beagel's good faith edits are most welcomed. Before attempts are made to clean up the article per tag added, per WP:WWIN, particularly WP:NOTDIRECTORY, I urge contributors to note that wiki is not a business directory such as Hoover's digest by D&B. Wiki is an encyclopedia, and a good article would include many aspects of article subject. Such aspects include a brief on social aspects, economic aspects, environmental aspects, political aspects, trade and other drivers, resource issues, all sides of any controversies involved, etc.; If the article is reduced to purely about the company, this wikipedia article will be reduced to a business directory page. To be truly encyclopedic, other aspects of Posco-India subject must be included.

FWIW, the title of this article is Posco-India, not POSCO India Private Limited. The former is a notable subject with domestic and global coverage in reliable secondary sources, the later is the company.

In India, and outside, the subject Posco-India is more than about a company. See for example Wall Street Journal reports, or others in The Economist, The Financial Times, BBC, NYT etc; all of which discuss many aspects of the subject Posco-India. Example: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704569404576298343174035486.html

Recently, User:Beagel made good faith attempt to clean up this article claiming that the article should be about company, apparently nothing else. After a day of reflection, I am not persuaded that this is appropriate. I think the article should be about the subject Posco-India, not just a business directory page about company. With due caution that we respect WP:OWN and other relevant wikipedia policies, before proceeding further, I invite explanation, comments and suggestions on (1) why this article should be reduced to just being a business directory; (2) if the article is reduced to just about the POSCO India Private Limited company, should the title be changed to legal name of the company for clarity. Your comments will help me improve this article and contribute constructively. I concur the quality of this article can be significantly improved.

ApostleVonColorado (talk) 02:12, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I can't be more agree that the article should be not business directory. Vice versa, this should be avoided. I really don't understand how you get an idea that anybody is suggesting to make it business directory entry. The article includes (and should include) the large controversies sections which, although needing copy-editing, makes it differ from any business directory entries.

I also can't understand how POSCO India and POSCO India Private Limited are different subjects. Per WP:NCCORP, as a rule, the common usage is preferred and status suffix or legal type is not included in the title. That means that the common name for POSCO India Private Limited is just POSCO India. So, this is the same.

I removed the information about the Indian resources and steel policies and steel market overview as this is not about the company. I agree that this information may be important in general, but in this case it should be placed in Natural resources policy of India, Steel policy of India, Steel in India or other similar articles. It seems that it would be necessary to start these articles. Beagel (talk) 17:40, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Captive port claims

I had deleted the following - In 2012, POSCO India and Paradip Port Trust studied possibilities for using the existing Paradip Port facilities for steel export from the planned steel mill. POSCO India stated that it may also to set up a captive port within 10 kilometres (6.2 mi) of the Paradip Port.

I re-read at the following cited source that is claimed to support this: http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2012-03-22/news/31224938_1_captive-port-posco-india-greenfield-steel-mill

This Economic Times article does not state anywhere that 'Posco India stated...". In good faith, I assume I am missing something or the support is in some other article. I await clarification why this has been reverted and retained. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 16:26, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Word 'stated' was added to the existing paragraph by user:Sgangan, original paragraph does not included this. After reconsidering I agree that the whole sentence about captive port could be removed as a speculation. However, the part of the joint study by POSCO and Paradip Port is relevant and I don't understand why this was removed. That is the reason why the paragraph was re-added. I hope that after modification this paragraph you don't have a problem with this anymore. Beagel (talk) 16:50, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I agree with you that after your latest edit, that sentence para is better. The source article claims Posco India and Paradip Port Trust agreed to study possibility....; it does not say they 'studied'. People can agree to do something, but later not do what they said they plan to do.

More importantly, is an agreement to form a committee to study something notable enough to include in this article? (see WP:NOTNEWSPAPER). The article quality would be better if a summary from that committee's final report was included, instead of merely including an intent to form a committee.

If you feel it is notable, then okay. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 17:26, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

I think this is notable. Again, it was changed to the past tense by the latest edits of above-mentioned user. If you think that 'agreed to study' is better, I have nothing against the change. Beagel (talk) 17:32, 1 July 2012 (UTC)