Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of multinational corporations


 * 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.  Sandstein  07:07, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

List of multinational corporations

 * – ( View AfD View log )

I have nominated this article for deletion because it is not useful for several reasons.

There is no guidance of what makes a company notable to be included in the list. Also, there are no sources to explain how the list was originated. Such a list would need to be kept up to date, and it is unlikely that it will be as it is. If the ambition of the article is to list every multinational corporation, it will be far too long and not very interesting, because tiny companies would be listed along side big ones.

For example, a better list would be something like "List of multinational corporations by global revenue as of 2010" (with a list of sources).

An argument why the article should not be deleted is that it could be improved with sources. However, I do not feel like doing this myself. If somebody else does, feel free to, but failing that, it would be better that the article be deleted so that people do not waste their time looking at it. Creating a better article would be no more work because of the non-existence of this one. Count Truthstein (talk) 22:38, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2012 March 8.  Snotbot   t &bull; c &raquo;  23:03, 8 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - After plucking Monster Energy drink off the list, I'm now convinced that there are no rational parameters here. Delete without prejudice to recreation of a sourced list — I have in mind a book or two with lists in appendices that can be mined. Carrite (talk) 04:38, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  — Frankie (talk) 20:39, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  — Frankie (talk) 20:39, 9 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep The topic is obviously notable per WP:LISTN. Our editing policy is to preserve and improve such imperfect drafts, not to delete them.  No policy-based reason to delete has been suggested - just a variety of arguments to avoid. Warden (talk) 11:08, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I didn't use policy to nominate this article, but my sense of what was useful and practical for Wikipedia. If there is a policy which says that the article is notable, that doesn't change my view of the article. Surely a policy for deletion is a generalization of discussions about individual articles? The existence or non-existence of a policy (other than the broadest, such as verifiability) is not an argument in itself: we can only judge how the arguments in favour of that policy apply in the specific case. So do you have any arguments against deleting this article apart from citing policy? Count Truthstein (talk) 00:04, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. The nom seems to misunderstand the nature of indexing lists such as this. It doesn't matter that the list will never be complete, and the concern over how the list was originated seems to suggest the nom thinks the list as a whole must have been copied from one master source to be valid rather than compiled from multiple sources. What makes a company notable to be included in the list? The same criteria that make it notable to merit its own article, as in any case of "List of X" where not every X that exists in the real world is notable (e.g., any other list of companies, any list of people, etc.). So long as multinational corporation provides a verifiable definition such that reliable sources establish whether a company is or isn't multinational, I don't see a problem with inclusion criteria. So I do not yet see a valid deletion rationale. postdlf (talk) 15:26, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Isn't this what categories are for, listing articles on notable subjects without any other information? Count Truthstein (talk) 00:04, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * See WP:CLN. They're not mutually exclusive. postdlf (talk) 05:30, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep I see no problem with this: it's a sensible topic to make a list of, not like some lists a bunch of things arbitrarily yoked together. I know some people don't like lists, but others do, and it's not going to kill you or even mislead you.  postdlf has it right. --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:58, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - It seems like a sensible topic for a list. If the problems with an article can be fixed by editing, it's not a good idea to delete it. Quasi  human  &#124;  Talk  14:26, 15 March 2012 (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.