Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/COSCO Shipping Lines


 * 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. It seems that the copyvio issues have been resolved. A merger can be discussed on the talk page.  Sandstein  12:47, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

COSCO Shipping Lines

 * – ( View AfD View log )

it seems a copyvio. The whole body paragraph of COSCO Shipping Lines followed the flow of the official company history located here http://www.coscoshipping.com/col/col6862/index.html, written in Chinese. Some sentence structure also very very similar.


 * e.g. 从此，中远开始了国有企业“贷款买船，赢利还贷”的发展模式，自力更生发展远洋船队. = rapidly grew its fleet using the business philosophy of “Buying Ships with Bank Loans and Returning Loans with Profits
 * 1964年4月1日，中远公司的第二个分公司上海远洋运输分公司（以下简称上海分公司）宣告成立，成立时的旧址在上海市中山东一路5号，= In 1964, China Ocean Shipping Co. established a second subsidiary, Shanghai Ocean Shipping Co. at No. 5 Zhongshan East No.1 Road in Shanghai

And here is the example from the second section of the article
 * 1993年10月5日，中远投资（新加坡）有限公司在新加坡成功上市，吹响了中远全面进军资本市场的号角，同时也成为第一家进入海外资本市场的中国国有企业
 * In 1993, COSCO Group listed on the Singapore Stock Exchange, becoming the first Chinese SOE to be listed on a foreign capital market

I should not quote too much, otherwise the Afd itself would became a copyvio.

Apart from copyvio. COSCO Shipping Lines is a division and main business of COSCO Shipping, so why fork out as another article? Did it pass WP:NCORP? Matthew hk (talk) 21:04, 19 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Here is Eng version. http://en.coscoshipping.com/col/col6922/index.html Matthew hk (talk) 21:10, 19 December 2020 (UTC)


 * And there is the wiki tools on copyvio


 * https://dupdet.toolforge.org/compare.php?url1=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FCOSCO_Shipping_Lines&url2=http%3A%2F%2Fen.coscoshipping.com%2Fcol%2Fcol6922%2Findex.html&minwords=3&minchars=13&removequotations=&removenumbers=


 * https://iw.toolforge.org/copyvios?lang=en&project=wikipedia&title=COSCO_Shipping_Lines&url=http://en.coscoshipping.com/col/col6922/index.html Matthew hk (talk) 21:14, 19 December 2020 (UTC)


 * One more point. The article by the company itself somewhat similar to International Directory of Company History 's entry as well. Not sure is it IDCH copy the old version of the company history by COSCO, or vice versa. Matthew hk (talk) 21:42, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * That a small portion is "Similar" does not mean anything. Definitely does not justify deleting an entire perfectly fine article. – CartleR255 (talk) 22:40, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:12, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:12, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:13, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

 Keep - COSCO Shipping Lines does not meet Wikipedia's deletion policy:  The article's content is properly verified (WP:V). There is no original research (WP:NOR) in the article. The article is written from a WP:NPOV and is free of puffery. Numerous third-party sources have been cited. The content does not reflect any marketing of the organization. There is no vanity (WP:VANITY) in the article. The article does not contain inaccurate claims.</li> </ul> COSCO Shipping Lines is obviously a very well-written article and contains plenty of reliable, secondary sources. The nominator's rationale that it is "copyvio" is not entirely true. There are sentences that convey information from the corporate webpage, but the syntax is not identical. Also, these sentences are only a very small portion of the article. Most of those sentences cannot be excluded or rephrased because they are direct quotations of the company's business ideology. One of the sentences mentioned by the nominator is a location address, so absolutely it will match with the corporate webpage. Most importantly, this article is the flagship subsidiary of COSCO Shipping Group, so it undoubtedly meets WP:CORP. We cannot merge it with any other Wikipedia article as there is next to zero WP:Overlap. Also, we have plenty of articles of other COSCO Shipping subsidiaries: COSCO Shipping Energy, COSCO Shipping Ports, COSCO Shipping Development. Why not also delete those for lack of WP:CORP?? Finally, I would like to note that this editor,, has accused me – the creator of the nominated article – of being a paid editor. Thus, I suspect his nomination to delete COSCO Shipping Lines represents a conflict of interest. – CartleR255 (talk) 22:31, 19 December 2020 (UTC) </li> </ul>


 * Comment CartleR255, I really don't understand your move or rationale on articles. COSCO Shipping Lines, is a division of COSCO Shipping, which engaged in container liner. COSCO Shipping Lines' predecessor also in that field. COSCO is the predecessor of COSCO Shipping. So, you tried again and again to merge COSCO and China Shipping Group into COSCO Shipping, but at the same time content fork by creating COSCO Shipping Lines?


 * COSCO Shipping Lines' may merit to have it own article, if it pass WP:NCORP and/or WP:GNG. But since the main business of COSCO Shipping is container liner (the company also has bulk carrier and port operator divisions), so this time it is not WP:overlap? You also agreed may discussion on merging COSCO Shipping Holdings, which is the listed company within COSCO Shipping group as the direct parent company of the liner, into COSCO Shipping Group, so why COSCO Shipping Lines is the exception on overlap instead?


 * Moreover, your existing content in this article title, COSCO Shipping Lines, most of them are not the content for that business division, but the company history of COSCO itself (such as Singapore IPO has no context to related to the container liner business, Or those non container liner businesses wiki content. Note that the Chinese name of COSCO Shipping Lines 中远海运集装箱运输有限公司, 集装箱 = Container, thus flooding the article with non-liner content is not suitable, the right place may be COSCO Shipping, which also created by you), and with promotional tone that seem WP:COPYVIO by close paraphrased from the company version. Also, people seldom add "Awards" section in company article with non-notable award, or putting full address of the company into the article (which itself a close paraphrase of company version of the history in their webpage). Thus, chopping all unrelated, or copyvio, or promotional content. The article has not enough content at all and may be all page history need to be hidden due to copyvio cleanup process. Matthew hk (talk) 21:34, 20 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Lastly, the flagship subsidiary is COSCO Shipping Holdings, a listed company, not the ocean liner division, which itself is not listed. I don't like WP:OTHERSTUFFEXIST logic, but it is totally fine to place the content of parent company and subsidiary together if they basically have the same main business (unless you argue parent company is a holding company that have no business). For example, we only has one article for Geely instead of Geely Auto and Geely Holdings. Or Swire and Swire Pacific is not separate article (yet? Swire Properties is a separate article BTW) Also Emperor Group. Matthew hk (talk) 21:39, 20 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment My rationale to keep COSCO Shipping Lines is that it has a substantial business operation with several details and history (thereby passing WP:CORP). You can easily find secondary sources for COSCO Shipping Lines to verify the content. Also, there is all the history of COSCON and CSCL. Whereas COSCO Shipping Holdings (and its predecessors) is just a holding company, so it suffices to mention it in COSCO Shipping parent group. You may argue that my rationale is arbitrary. However, think of this, I cannot find enough noteworthy content to justify keeping COSCO Shipping Holdings as a separate article, which is why I agreed to your proposed merge. Also please visit your talk page for more details.  Cartle   R255  15:54, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Also, I have proposed WP:ATD which can be found on the article talk page (link). Cartle   R255  17:22, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   21:42, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Merge per the agreement evidently reached above. I think it's noteworthy but am not sure of the need for a separate article, unless the parent one becomes too unwieldly. I am also not sure of the copyvio issue; while I agree to content does appear similar, in previous forms of the article (e.g. Special:Diff/992196646 it looks like there were citations for the sentences "rapidly grew its fleet..." (third-party sources, to be fair) and "In 1964, China Ocean Shipping Co..." (the company's English about page). Disregarding questions of whether novelly translated material is in itself a copyright violation in the degree that a straight copy/paste would be, the citations seem acceptable, if imperfect. WhinyTheYounger (WtY) (talk, contribs)  22:10, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. The nominator hasn't stated a proper rationale for bringing the AFD nomination. One should take suspected copyright violations to WP:COPYPROB and the WP:AFD pages will become even more tangled if we start to conflate the two issues.  In any case, COSCO SHIPPING Lines is, as the article says, the world's third largest container shipping company and independently meets WP:GNG.  The article needs significant improvement but that's a separate issue.  Fiachra10003 (talk) 16:17, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment. I'll just point out that the article has changed radically since it was first nominated. I edited it to see if I could rescue it, eliminating some of the issues the nominator pointed out, and found that the offending passages had been rewritten or removed. Fiachra10003 (talk) 17:00, 2 January 2021 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.