Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HDC Group


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. The arguments to delete are both stronger and more numerous here; at least a few of the provided sources are clearly inadmissible. I say this, for the record, despite my personal feeling that a conglomerate of this size ought to have enough source material. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:27, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

HDC Group

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Fails WP:NCORP, WP:SIRS.  scope_creep Talk  23:43, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and South Korea.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 23:49, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Relisting comment: Already PROD'd, not eligible for Soft Deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:29, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Based on (lack of) sourcing, this does not seem to be notable.--Gen. Quon[Talk] 21:26, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Keep - Here are a few more sources:, , . Does it for me but if there is still a consensus to delete, a merge or redirect to Hyundai Group needs to be considered as an WP:ATD. ~Kvng (talk) 17:44, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Ref 1 above is press-release and fails WP:SIRS as not being independent of the subject.
 * Ref 2 is a passing mention. Fails WP:SIRS as not indepth.
 * Ref 3 is not independent as interviews. Fails WP:ORGIND.  scope_creep Talk  09:47, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
 * 1/ I don't see that. The article has a byline. 2/ It is a short article. Passing mention usually refers to a brief mention in a longer article. 3/ Though there are quotes, I wouldn't characterized this as an interview. ~Kvng (talk) 13:30, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Relisting comment: Relisting as a source review is promised. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:25, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. The sources added by Eastmain (except the last one) seem sufficient in establishing notability. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 21:39, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Why would you say such a thing when its so obvious that the references added to the article all fail WP:NCORP. I will go throught the refs tommorrow.  scope_creep Talk  22:28, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep: per the above discussion Jack4576 (talk) 07:56, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * You only seem to started attending Afd since May, apart from a couple in 2020. !voting keep on everything.   scope_creep Talk  11:33, 14 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment Lets examine the references for this article. Per the references:
 * Ref 1 Names change fails WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:SIRS.
 * Ref 2 Press-release. This is WP:PRIMARY. Fails WP:SIRS.
 * Ref 3 Fails WP:ORGIND as interview.
 * Ref 4 Another press-release. Fails WP:SIRS.

Looking at the references above:
 * Ref 1 This is WP:PRIMARY. Fails WP:SIRS.
 * Ref 2 Its not in-depth being a passing mention and fails WP:SIRS.
 * Ref 3 Its not independent. The whole source is about the group chairmain. It fails WP:SIRS as its not independent.    scope_creep Talk  11:33, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The article was created during that period when any old junk could be used to source it and accepted and this is reflected in the very poor quality of the references. They are as routine and basic as it possible to get and they fail WP:NCORP at a number of levels. While this is a public company and the consensus is to keep such articles, in these articles types, the references still must satisfy WP:NCORP.  scope_creep Talk  11:33, 14 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete: Fails GNG and CORP. Source eval above shows none of the sources have SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth from IS RS. Above BEFORES only showed passing mentions, nothing with SIGCOV.  // Timothy :: talk  19:06, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep It's clearly significant enough for an article, and coverage exists contains a short quote from a press release from the company but is not a press release or interview or other primary, and there are also https://www.mk.co.kr/news/society/9102775 and https://koreajoongangdaily.joins.com/2022/02/20/business/industry/IPARK-HDC-apartment/20220220070017875.html and almost certainly others. [[User:Peter James|Peter James] (talk) 15:53, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete – the sources as analyzed by scope creep clearly show that this fails WP:CORPDEPTH. – bradv  20:14, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Redirect WP:CHEAP a redirect to Hyundai Group is an WP:ATD-R. Lightburst (talk) 21:16, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * This company is no longer affiliated with Hyundai, so that redirect would be inaccurate. – bradv  21:29, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Don't these initials stand for "Hyundai Development Company"? It is a logical redirect in my opinion. Lightburst (talk) 22:26, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The article says it was spun off from Hyundai and they're no longer affiliated. But now I see we also have an article on HDC Hyundai Development Company which says something completely different. So I don't know - you may be right. – bradv  22:48, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * A brief comment: If there is to be a redirect, there should be some mention or explanation of this topic on the target page. Redirecting, for example, "HDC" to Hyundai Group implies that they are either synonymous or that one is contained within the other; if they are separate entities that at one point shared a name or collaborated, a redirect without any mention of "HDC" on the target page would be a little misleading. Actualcpscm (talk) 16:43, 27 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete: A large number of sources that each fail WP:SIRS for different reasons is no substitute for good sourcing. Since nobody has been able to find any source that actually meets the criteria for establishing notability, I don't see how this can be considered to meet that threshold. There is no doubt that many of the available sources could be used to verify individual claims in an article, but none establish notability to the extent that is required for standalone articles. Actualcpscm (talk) 16:43, 27 May 2023 (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.