Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aspial Corporation


 * 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 delete. Consensus is the sourcing does not meet requirements for corporate notability. Star  Mississippi  02:05, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Aspial Corporation

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Fails WP:NCORP, extensively UPE edited, not finding any coverage other than fund-raising & sales puff pieces. Cabayi (talk) 11:12, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Companies,  and Singapore. Cabayi (talk) 11:12, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete - sourcing is way below notability level. Seems to have been a magnet for promo and spamming entries about one particular jewellery firm since the start. I can find nothing of worth in searches. Fails WP:GNG  Velella  Velella Talk 11:56, 6 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete, WP:NCORP not met. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 21:50, 6 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep I see multiple news articles here about the company, such as this and this. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 12:39, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment - every one of those appears to be self-published or press releases. I can't see one where an independent sources is discussing the company.  Velella  Velella Talk 13:03, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't see how any of them are self-published as they come from The Straits Times, tabla!, Berita Harian, The Business Times, The New Paper, Streats and today, none of which are affiliated with this company, and I fail to see how every single one of them are press releases. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 13:22, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The first source seems to be a sponsored content or in partnership with Spring Singapore. Despite being a digital media term, native advertising isn't a new concept actually. – robertsky (talk) 01:02, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Sources linked say they are published in the "Advertisements Column". Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:37, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Alright, I might not have chosen the best of examples. That still doesn't change the fact that there are still dozens of other sources found here. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 07:47, 8 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep: I have found sources to support its notability given that it had significant secondary coverage over a long period of time. Note that most of these sources may not be directly available via NewspaperSG from home (due to licensing agreement between NLB and the publisher), however editors holding NLB membership (typically Singapore residents) are able to access these articles via Newslink database, which is accessible after logging into through NLB, and then clicking on 'Newslink' link. I have rewritten the article and still is, but essentially the prior promotional content have been stripped. – robertsky (talk) 19:39, 8 May 2022 (UTC) Striking keep vote after reading through HighKing and Cabayi's follow-up. – robertsky (talk) 11:18, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: copy of the sources can be made available via email or discord (direct message) upon request. – robertsky (talk) 04:20, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * On further consideration, I am reinstating my keep vote. Aspial is synonymous to many of their subsidiaries. Aspial is created on the backs of Lee Hwa Jewellry. Thus Lee Hwa is intergral in the history of Aspial. The takeover of LCD Developments is covered throughout the process and it wasn't an one-off reporting. Although it is not stated in the article yet, World Class Global and Aspial are frequently stated in news report in Australia, particular in Cairns where there has been a failed development that lingered for 7 years before being cancelled. Srcs:  I just dug it up, and have yet to process the reports into a suitable prose. These may be just simply 'business decisions', but they are covered in secondary and reliable sources, and are not just simply interviews or press releases, thus fulfilling the GNG. There may be separate questions such as should these subsidiaries have their own articles, (vis-a-vis Sea Ltd and Garena), but I think this is a content issue and should be debated in the article talk pages. – robertsky (talk) 08:56, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment This is really just an opinion with zero support in our guidelines. You mention "thus fulfilling the GNG" when the appropriate WP:SNG is WP:NCORP. You provide some "reasoning" but realistically, it is really WP:OR and you haven't provided links to any references that support your "reasoning" and meet NCORP's criteria for establishing notability. You say that some of your "reasoning" is "covered in secondary and reliable sources" but the primary test is the content of the articles, not the credentials of the publisher, and while some may not be "simply interviews or press releases", none meet NCORP's criteria. You've said you disagree with my evaluation of sources but after some days now, you've failed to point to any particular reference which you believe meets the standard required. This all starts and ends with references. If you think there are references that meet the criteria, link them, point out the paragraphs/sections that meet CORPDEPTH and ORGIND and then we'll have something concrete to discuss.  HighKing++ 10:16, 12 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep: Per robertsky's rewrite of the article, passes GNG now. Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 02:58, 9 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete First off, lets start by picking the appropriate guideline. Since this is a company/organization NCORP guidelines apply which describes particular criteria for establishing the notability of a company. Also, unless blatantly obvious (e.g. Blog posts, no attributed journalist, Forbes contributors, etc), I'm assuming all the sources are reliable and the publishers are corporately independent from the topic organization - but there's more requirements than just "RS" for establishing notability.
 * Since the topic is a company/organization, we therefore require references that discuss the *company* in detail. As per WP:SIRS *each* reference must meet the criteria for establishing notability - the quantity of coverage is irrelevant so long as we find a minimum of two. WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content".
 * "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. This is usually the criteria where most references fail. References cannot rely only on information provided by the company, quotations, press releases, announcements, interviews fail ORGIND. Whatever is left over must also meet CORPDEPTH.
 * None of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability of the company. Invariably all of the articles either write about the activities of Lee Hwa, the founder, which is not the topic of this article and/or rely on interviews/information provided by the company or their executives and do not contain in-depth information and "Independent Content" about *the company*. In fact, not one of the articles focuses on the actual company. Topic therefore fails WP:NCORP.  HighKing++ 17:23, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 * @HighKing, your evaluation is based on the rewrite or the version before the rewrite? I differ on the evaluation of the sources, most are in depth and are of the actual company. – robertsky (talk) 03:27, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi, my evaluation took place after the rewrite. On the evaluation of the sources, any in-depth information on the company must be *clearly* attributed to a source unaffiliated with the company. Most references are either based entirely on company announcements or feature the CEO (including interview/quotes). Once you discount this information, there is very little left and not enough to meet CORPDEPTH.  HighKing++ 11:36, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * , none of the claims (even after the rewrite) rise to notability - "first opened", "had 12 retail outlets", "reduced its selling price", "the company went on to be listed", "it acquired", "it licensed", "it changed its name", "it purchased", "Aspial started ... a pawnbroking business", "contended in a takeover battle", "spin off" - they're all about the company's financing, ownership and normal business activities. What's notable? Cabayi (talk) 10:42, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Noted – robertsky (talk) 11:16, 11 May 2022 (UTC)


 * 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.