Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of conglomerates


 * 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. -- Cirt (talk) 03:14, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

List of conglomerates

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Lacking in notability. Most entries have no reliable sources or no sources at all confirming the company is actually a conglomerate. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 22:22, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 13 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - WP:LISTN seems to be the right guideline here, not WP:COMPANY, although it is admittedly vague. I think the topic of conglomerates is a notable one and this list might be useful. Citations to secondary sources are needed but I don't think inclusion in this list should be controversial since the definition of a conglomerate is fairly straightforward. GabrielF (talk) 04:46, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - People simply add whatever companies they feel fit on this list without providing evidence by secondary sources, that the company actually is a conglomerate. For a reader it is therefore in most cases impossible to confirm if a company in this list really is a conglomerate or not. For example the list currently contains AEG, which nowadays is only a brand used by Electrolux and thus clearly not a conglomerate. Anyway, in the current state, most entries do not have sources confirming that the company is a conglomerate and is suitable for inclusion in this list. The list is thus a huge pile of guesswork - not the kind of information Wikipedia should have (see WP:VERIFY). Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 11:18, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep but clean up inclusion criteria. -- Selket Talk 19:35, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe, maybe not - I share Toshio Yamaguchi concern that this will impossible to verify per WP:V, and his example of AEG proves the point well. The other issue I have is that I feel that "conglomerate" may still be too broad and/or vague (bordering on indiscriminate). In the case of AEG, it once was a conglomerate but now is a name that is licensed, so it no longer is.  Should it be on the list?  Notability may be permanent but conglomerates status isn't.  The current criteria isn't narrow enough in this respect.  If it were to stay with the same title and criteria, I would have to agree with him and say Delete.  If the title and/or criteria were to change to something more narrowly defined, I would be open minded to the idea.  Dennis Brown (talk) 20:31, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Your first point seems to be based on the list's current state; that something is currently unverified does not mean it is unverifiable. I could see two ways to verify entries: 1) sources that clearly state "Company X is a conglomerate" or 2) provided the definition of "conglomerate" is clear enough, sources that establish the facts requisite for that definition.  Which leads me to your second point, which is more compelling.  Just because we have an article on a concept doesn't mean it is feasible to make an exhaustive list of even notable examples of that concept, if it is too broad or questionable in application.  Then it might make more sense just to note a few widely-recognized exemplars of the concept in that article rather than maintain a separate, open-ended list.  So I'll be watching this AFD for more commentary on that before I !vote.  But the mere fact that a corporation may become, and then cease to be, a conglomerate isn't in and of itself a problem because we don't limit information to what is true at present.  If Company X enters the steel industry, but then leaves it ten years later, we would still include Company X on a List of steel producers and then we could annotate the period for which that was the case.  Why not the same for conglomerate status, noting when the corporation entered and then exited the unrelated industry?  postdlf (talk) 21:19, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I understand the difference in verifiable and verified. I stated that it might be "impossible", not that it had yet to be done.  Not being source TODAY isn't my concern, it is an inability to verify that a corporation qualifies within the criteria of something that is overly broad and subject to interpretation differently by different people, even if given an infinite amount of time.  As to the other, the given criteria doesn't differentiate between "was" and "is" a conglomerate, which just demonstrates my concerns about the criteria for inclusion not being discriminate enough.  Even the term "conglomerate" is by definition, a bit broad.  The concept of the article (list of big companies that are made up of many other companies) doesn't bother me in the least, it is the current implementation and criteria that would require essentially a new article, or at the least, a move to a better title with a more rigidly defined criteria. Dennis Brown (talk) 21:59, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree. The article needs to clearly define the term "conglomerate". Then we can add companies, of which secondary sources say they satisfy this definition. As to the "was" and "is" a conglomerate thing: I think the list could contain all notable companies that have ever been a conglomerate and for which secondary sources can be found which say so. This would also keep the list at a reasonable length, as I think there aren't that many companies which satisfy this definition. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 09:54, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:31, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Firsfron of Ronchester  20:30, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. There're not so many conglomerates in the world to say that entries of this list are hard to prove. Lack of sources is a reason to improve the list, not to delete it. Besides of that, I'd like to propose to authors of the list, to work over the section "Vanished conglomerates", i.e. those ones, which do not exist any longer, but historically are significant ones. I've followed it with a proper example in the list. – George Serdechny 08:51, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Keep. The only objections seem to be that some items are unsourced and that the inclusion criteria need to be better defined. Both of those issues can be fixed by our standard editing processes rather than deletion. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:42, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. No reason to delete this. Sure, sourcing needs to be improved, but that shouldn't be the criteria to delete it. --Funandtrvl (talk) 17:42, 3 May 2011 (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.