Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CamGSM


 * 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   no consensus. –MuZemike 23:33, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

CamGSM

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Article regarding non-notable company in Cambodia with significant WP:ADVERT issues. The article was created by user with WP:COI as there is a strong connection with the company's pricipal investor in the company. This user has also created articles about other non-notable Cambodia companies in which this firm has invesed (See: Articles for deletion/Nautisco Seafood and Articles for deletion/Kingdom Breweries) User may also have a WP:SOCK issue (See: Sockpuppet investigations/Douglasclayton) The article's brief references are all puff pieces by small local publications hosted on the investment firm's website. Searches show limited reason to believe this is a notable company (the only event of note for the company is the Leopard Capital investment) |► ϋrбan яeneωaℓ  •  TALK  ◄| 22:47, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cambodia-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 20 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep - regardless of teh motivations of the article's creator, CamGSM is the largest mobile telecom provider in its country . -- Whpq (talk) 15:59, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Does that automatically mean it is notable if the country is Cambodia? I don't think that the largest in cambodia is an automatic qualifier.  There are not many cambodian companies in Wikipedia, the bulk of which have been added by this user for companies in which he has some personal connection through Leopard Capital |►  ϋrбan яeneωaℓ  •  TALK  ◄| 16:54, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It's pretty much notable for any country I would venture to say. The largest wireless telecom provider for any country is going to attract coverage.  -- Whpq (talk) 17:03, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Well then you should rely on the coverage that it has attracted (or not). |►  ϋrбan яeneωaℓ  •  TALK  ◄| 15:19, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * There certainly is coverage about the company, , and as it is not an English-speaking, additional coverage is not going to be easily found by me. -- Whpq (talk) 17:32, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment This is pretty scant coverage. The company name is mentioned briefly in one article and the other article where there is some additional "coverage" is in some minor trade publication which I could find had only been used in one other article in all of wikipedia as a reference.  Like I said originally, the only notable thing that ever happened to this company was an investment in it by a small private equity firm that seems to be eager to draw attention to itself.  I think when you step back this is a stretch.  It is one of six or seven mobile phone companies in Cambodia (maybe it is the largest but where is the verification of this?), there is limited third party coverage and the only reason there is an article is because a problematic COI editor intends to use it for WP:ADVERT.  I tend to be an inclusionist but I find little reason to support keeping this article.  There is limited content of any value and if you wanted to save it, the better route would be to show what would be done with the article. |►  ϋrбan яeneωaℓ  •  TALK  ◄| 14:06, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Reply - That's in English language sources. I have no idea what coverage is like in non-English sources.  I would expect that the largest wireless provider in a country would have coverage in the that country. -- Whpq (talk) 14:29, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I have never heard that brought up in an AfD discussion and don't think that is a very good argument. This is the English Wikipedia.  I looked again and all I found were some press releases about buying some equipment.  It is just limited coverage and that is one of the criteria for WP:CORP so my argument is that this fails that threshold of notability.  There is nothing in WP:CORP about a quota of articles about companies in a specific industry being represented in each country.  If this company were bought tomorrow by a multi-national, would the next biggest company suddenly become automatically notable? I think we need to relist this discussion and get some other opinions |►  ϋrбan яeneωaℓ  •  TALK  ◄| 14:53, 25 August 2010 (UTC)


 * From WP:CORP:
 * Notable" is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance," and even organizations that editors personally believe are "important" are only accepted as notable if they can be shown to have attracted notice. No organization is exempt from this requirement, no matter what kind of organization it is. If the individual organization has received no or very little notice, then it is not notable simply because other individual organizations of its type are commonly notable or merely because it exists."
 * Reply - There may be Systemic bias at play here as I suspect that neither of us are particularly adept at finding Khmer language sources. -- Whpq (talk) 16:03, 25 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:CORP. No significant secondary coverage to establish notability. Uncle Dick (talk) 17:46, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per . There is significant coverage in reliable sources. See this entry in "Asia Pacific Telecom Newsletter" and this entry in Country Report: Cambodia, Laos. These sources, coupled with those found by Whpq, are enough to establish notability. That CamGSM is the largest mobile telecom provider in its country strongly indicates that there are non-English sources about CamGSM; this would further establish notability. However, the sources found in this discussion are enough to establish that this company passes Notability (company) and this article passes Verifiability due to the nontrivial coverage in several third-party reliable sources. Cunard (talk) 02:51, 26 August 2010 (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.