Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BBY Ltd (2nd nomination)


 * 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   keep. Nja 247 10:17, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

BBY Ltd
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

renominating as there was hardly any real consensus in the last deletion discussion. it should be noted that this article has had some significant editing from 2 single purpose editors attached to the article subject. nevertheless this subjects fails WP:ORG. mentions in the media are not about the company itself but more employees commenting on the stock market. LibStar (talk) 23:47, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.  —Grahame (talk) 02:38, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - This article has a WP:COI issue due to contributions from its employees but it appears to me to pass notability after I originally had my doubts as well. I have tried to come in and clean out the bulk of the material that I thought did not belong.  However, the company itself establishes notability through media coverage (in addition to the ridiculous quantum of articles that certain contributors keep putting into the article referencing the opinions of BBY analysts).  The company is among the largest brokerages in Australia and its research is widely referenced.  The company itself is not public but is minority owned by Jefferies & Company a US public company.  I think this article needs to be monitored to avoid WP:SPAM but I would much prefer to deal with the conflict issue than just try to delete the article. |►  ϋrбan яeneωaℓ  •  TALK  ◄| 14:12, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak keep - I notice there is a list of proposed references on the article's Talk page. After those are added to the article, it seems likely that it will show notability. EdJohnston (talk) 15:31, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep is mildly notable with sufficient references. I investigated this in tandem with Glenn Rosewall (which I do not believe is notable). Drawn Some (talk) 22:30, 27 April 2009 (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.