Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eastern Housing Limited


 * 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. Notability has now been established. Non-admin closure. The Evil Spartan (talk) 00:04, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Eastern Housing Limited

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Delete Vanity article for NN company Mayalld (talk) 12:37, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Non-notable company. Springnuts (talk) 12:44, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep now it is referenced. Springnuts (talk) 23:41, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom and Springnuts. Redfarmer (talk) 12:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 *  Delete Strong keep No evidence of notability provided, although I remain concerned that perhaps we are forgetting about countering systemic bias. -- Mattinbgn\talk 22:09, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Listing on a national stock exchange goes a long way towards establishing notability. -- Mattinbgn\talk 14:33, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment See also Armanaziz Daily Star search results below. Some are trivial mentions but many are significantly  about Eastern Housing -- Mattinbgn\talk 14:39, 4 January 2008 (UTC).


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions.   —Mattinbgn\talk 22:11, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep: I do believe we are being subject to systematic bias here. This is probably the largest and pioneering real estate company in Bangladesh that helped shape the face of Dhaka in '80s and '90s.  Arman  ( Talk ) 01:44, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I would be happy to change my !vote if a reliable source supporting notability could be found. -- Mattinbgn\talk 04:14, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: Dhaka Stock Exchange page for the company is here. According to this page the total market capitalization of this company is BDT 0.9bn which is approx USD 12.5 million. This may not sound large in US standard, but it is quite big in Bangladesh standard. Is this enough proof of notability? In my opinion, since Dhaka Stock Exchange is the largest Stock Exchange in Bangladesh, all listed company of this exchange should be inherently notable. Shouldn't they?  Arman  ( Talk ) 11:19, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Why on earth would that be the case? As far as I can see, there is no Wikipedia policy which makes any company inherently notable just because it is listed on a Stock Exchange. Whilst most (all?) of the LSE main market are notable, this isn't inherent notability due to listing. Mayalld (talk) 11:34, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * No, "makes lots of money" is not in the notability criteria for companies - WP:COMPANY. Wikipedia is not a list of popular things which exist (Not an indiscriminate collection of information), it's an encyclopedia describing significant things and how they've impacted the world. TheBilly (talk) 11:40, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I understand the point that you are making. But please try to look beyond the words of the policy and try to find the spirit of it. The criteria asks for verification from an independent secondary source. Dhaka Stock Exchange is an independent body who, by enlisting EHL, is attesting their notability. None the less, I have provided 2 more independent sources below.  Arman  ( Talk ) 12:04, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Bangladesh is part of the world too and it seems this company is significant and has had an impact there. Bangladesh is a country of 150 million people and Dhaka, with a population of 11 million is the 11th most populous city in the world. If the company had a significant effect i.e. "helped shape the face of Dhaka in '80s and '90s" then it seems to me to be notable.  I would suggest that Bangladeshi newspapers would have a stream of articles about the company and the the article should therefore be verifiable.  All we need is someone with access to these papers. -- Mattinbgn\talk 14:33, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Notability requires non-trivial mention by independent sources. Appearance in a directory or listing fails the non-triviality test Mayalld (talk) 12:45, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. Obvious failure of WP:COMPANY. No secondary sources at all establishing importance TheBilly (talk) 11:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Disagree: Searching the news archive of The Daily Star I get 63 hits (Serach results available  here). Another daily The New Nation, which maintains a much smaller online database, gives 2 hits (here). So here you go- two independent secondary sources provided already.  Arman  ( Talk ) 11:47, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep The leading Bangladeshi real estate company is not non-notable by any standards. There are plenty reference of the company from respectable sources, too (unless you consider the highest circulating English-language daily edited by the head of the Asia News Network Bangladesh an unacceptable source). Also, check the number of companies listed with DSE. Bangladesh doesn't have an LSE that lists every company from every country, and mere listing is enough to assert notability. If non-western, non-northern articles are coming under fire, then we have a very sad encyclopedia on our hand. May be this requires intervention of WikiProject Countering systemic bias. Aditya (talk • contribs) 16:14, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notability well established by Arman. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:35, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep What is an encyclopedia? I think- "It will be able to provide information about any topic which is desired by plenty of wiki users". I want to inform you that, at least 500 business students of Bangladesh search the internet for the information about leading Bangladeshi companies in every month. Don't you think that, it will be a helpful source for them? --Farsad (talk) 21:24, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment It is all too easy to lose focus on the primary notability criteria: [].   Arman 's search hits are by and large passing trivial references.  If there is gold there it is well hidden. Springnuts (talk) 22:15, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply: A humble request to all wikipedians from developed countries - please try to understnd the reality of Bangladesh. In this developing country (the 7th largest country in the world by population) the capital market is not very developed yet. The culture of hundreds of analysts covering different industries has not grown. Companies are not very comfortable discussing their internal affairs with journalists / outsiders either. As a result it is extremely difficult to find any newspaper/book/magazine publishing in-depth article on an established business venture. More so, because this appears to be "politically incorrect" - as people may tend to view that newspaper/magazine to be biased towards that company. As a result, even the most obviously dominating businesses in the country only make to newspaper when there is a related industry-wide news and the company executive is sought to provide expert opinion, or there is a scandal of some sort, or when the company makes important public announcements like declaring dividends, merger / acquisition etc. In a nutshell it is difficult to find non-trivial coverage of established businesses in Bangladeshi newspapers. Furthermore, of whatever coverage is there, probably 90%+ are in Bengali, not online and not systemaically archived. Given these, if we now knock-out a company that has 40% market share in the residential plot and appartment development business of the country as non-notable; and throw away the 63 hits it got on the "only online newspaper with a respectable archive" as trivial - then this will be an ideal example of systematically eliminating developing world articles. Just to get a feel of the level of contribution of this company do a mere comparison: the city of Jacksonville, Arkansas has 8,004 resident families - match this with - 13,000 residential plots and 3,500 completed apartments sold by EHL in last 40 years.  Arman  ( Talk ) 02:12, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment 40% market share, highest taxpayer in the sector, 620 acres of land, 24 housing projects, some 13,000 plots, pioneer in low cost housing, architect of changing the face of Dhaka... all that in non-notable? If trivial mention is the rationale, then let's understand that "trivial" is understood as a passing reference that is hardly relevant to the subject (like a gunman caught by the police in one of Eastern's housing projects, we have quite a few of that). But, many of the Google hits are about news that specifically refers to and discusses the subject (add 54 hits of New Age, the rising star of Bangladesh newspapers, to that). I guess, the maximum this article deserves is a refimprove tag. Aditya (talk • contribs) 03:34, 6 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep As per Arman. The article is well-referenced now.--NAHID 08:42, 7 January 2008 (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.