Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ESMO 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. I'm discounting the view of Narine1202 because, as the nominator notes, their history makes it likely that they are an undeclared paid editor.  Sandstein  19:54, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

ESMO Corporation

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

minor specialized company manufacturing automobile wiring components. The references are almost entirely either listings or mere notes, which is not enough for NCORP. Article by a spa, presumably an undeclared paid editor, but no actual proof of that  DGG ( talk ) 01:49, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:52, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:52, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:52, 26 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment. hi there,

I created ESMO Corporation page believing that it is a company that is worth having a wikipedia page.


 * First of, I disagree with your opinion that the references are almost entirely either listings or mere notes. Please check out https://www.vietnambreakingnews.com/2018/07/esmo-starts-construction-of-wiring-harness-plant-in-vietnam/ and this https://www.autonomousvehicletech.com/articles/195-volex-and-nexen-tech-enter-into-strategic-partnership articles only that talk about ESMO corporation having an impact on economic growth of Vietnam, etc.
 * The reason you might think that the company is too small to be on Wikipedia is probably becase it was renamed ESMO Corporation from the previous Nexen tech, which is a quite known company in Korea.
 * When adding sources I was trying to add mostly English sources thinking that the reviewers might have some difficulties with Korean language. I can add more sources in Korea if you think it would help to prove my point.
 * Another reason to think that ESMO Corporation should be on Wikipedia is the comparison with similar companies, like Furukawa, Fujikura, Yura Corporation d.o.o., etc. so please check out those pages and give it another thought.
 * To be honest, I spent quite a lot of time and effort to create this page, as you should know, and I hope that my work will not be a waste of time. So, please, if you have any suggestions, please tell me how to improve the article and don't delete it right away.

Thank you and I will get back to you if I have more comments to add, Hope you will give this another thought and help me out.

Regars, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Narine1202 (talk • contribs) 02:13, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Narine1202 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:15, 26 March 2019 (UTC)  — Note to closing admin: Narine1202 (talk • contribs) appears to have a close connection with the subject of the article being discussed. I was again reviewing wikipedia's policy regarding companies that are notable to be on wikipedia and sources that are regarded reliable secondary and what is significant coverage. I believe that some of the sources for ESMO Corporation page definitely fulfil these criterias. According to wikipedia, substantial coverage in independant sources includes e.g. a news article discussing a corporate merger/partnership, a source that illustrates the environmental impact of the corporation (and I assume economic impact will also be considered substantial coverage), and others, examples of which you can find in the article sources. So, I believe there is no problem with the company being notable or worth having a wikipedia page. Regarding the claim about WP:PAID, again I am not paid for creating this article and defending my hard work is I guess natural. Lastly, according to wikipedia's deletion policy if consensus is not reached within 7 days the article should stay in the mainspace as default. It is already 7 days the article is reviewed for deletion and I would like to finally know what is going to happen to the article. Again, if you think it is better to add more sources in Korean I will do that or if you think I need to edit the source if the tone is not neutral I will again do that. I just only require to give a certain answer as to what I am supposed to do to help this article be finally considered good enough to be on wikipedia. Thank you, Narine1202 Narine1202 (talk)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment. Being that the company is a publicly traded company, i believe it is notable but the problem here is there is definitely a COI issue with the article. I have also noticed a few creations of the author and they all seem promotional like WP:PAID. My take is article should be moved to AFC where it will be scrutinized and moved to mainspace when ready or preferably reduce the article to one paragraph. Lapablo (talk) 16:39, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment. Thank you for your comment @Lapablo,

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 03:41, 3 April 2019 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   09:51, 11 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment There is no presumption that a public company is notable, except for those on the main board of the NYSE or the LondonSE, What is true, is that it is easier to write an article on a public company, at least a US pubic company, because of the availability of audied financial data.  DGG ( talk ) 05:43, 14 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment With all due respect @DGG, this is a Korean company and unless you are aware of the Korean market you can't really claim that the company is not notable cause it is not on NYSE or LondonSE. Your claim was not clear. Another thing, it has been almost 3 weeks the article is here for the discussion, while according to the regulations the consensus should be reached within a week and if not any than the article stays. I do understand that all of the editors are busy with a lot of new articles and all but I would really appreciate if I know the outcome of this discussion as soon as possible.

Narine1202
 * I'm not saying thaty. I'm merely saying a company of the main board of the NYSE is almost certainly notable --these are a small minority of the publlic companies in the US. It doesn't apply to the auxiliary listings--companies listed there, and non-listed companies, may or may not be notable. Some of them are very famous very notable firms, but most are very small. I said the same about LSE because it's been accepted in many afds--I have much less knowledge there. Other UK copanies may of may not be. For other exchanges in other countries we don;t make the same presumption of notability, but that doesn't mean they are not notable, just that it has to be shown independently of the stock exchange membership.  DGG ( talk ) 04:02, 15 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete I agree with DGG that the sources are not sufficient to establish notability. --Randykitty (talk) 16:29, 18 April 2019 (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.