Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of trading companies


 * 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. Randykitty (talk) 13:37, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

List of trading companies

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This list contains an arbitrary list of companies without any clear definition for inclusion to the list. Even if there was a clear definition it would be better to use a category rather than this page. Sargdub (talk) 11:39, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2014 September 18.  — cyberbot I  Notify Online 11:43, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 14:50, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 14:50, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 14:57, 18 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep - Qualifies for an article per WP:NOTDUP, which states "it is neither improper nor uncommon to simultaneously have a category, a list, and a navigation template which all cover the same topic. These redundant systems of organizing information are considered to be complementary, not inappropriately duplicative. Furthermore, arguing that a category duplicates a list (or vice versa) at a deletion discussion is not a valid reason for deletion and should be avoided." The list also provides a useful navigation aid for Wikipedia's readers per WP:LISTPURP. NorthAmerica1000 14:53, 18 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep per NorthAmerica. Numerous notable entries;  valid list-article.  If it helps the nominator, consider that "List of notable trading companie" is the implicit title;  we just leave out the "notable" as it is understood.  Thanks. -- do  ncr  am  22:05, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Just a quick comment on the last two points, these are good points and I don't have an issue with a list as well as category for certains lists. My main concern is what qualifies as a trading company.  Given the definition in the article I would say most companies are trading companies.  All retailers, shops, distributors and importers exporters etc, the list goes on, I would say the bulk of all companies in existence would qualify.  In particular I note that financial trading companies such as ABN Assets and Plus500 have been added to the list, if these also qualify then we can add most financial companies as well.   I note that WP:WikiProject Companies has about 20,000 company pages on Wikipedia, so are we suggesting adding a large percentage of these to this article?  Doncram your suggestion of limiting it to notable companies could help and the article could be renamed, but again definition is difficult, to have an article on wikipedia it must be notable so we might still be talking 5,000 -10,000 companies.  I note that before this article became a magnet for spam entries, which is why I noticed it and proposed its deletion, most of the companies on the list were historic and an alternative could be to create a page of companies established before a certain date say 1800 so that we only have historic companies, but not sure this achieves the purpose of the creator of this list. Sargdub (talk) 01:48, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment - I have updated the lead of the article to provide a more informative overview. NorthAmerica1000 02:24, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * To be clear, notability of items within a list does not have to rise to the level of Wikipedia-notability for an independent article on each item. Red-links are useful, and is one way that lists are better/different than categories.  Black-links where no article is expected can be okay.  See wp:LISTN.  I think it is pretty obvious that each item that has an independent article can be mentioned in a list, but also more can be mentioned (with sources).  Standards for list item inclusion are to be discussed at the list-article talk page. -- do  ncr  am  16:42, 19 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep - Agree that notable is understood given that only companies notable enough to have an article are listed. It is assumed that each company fits within the definition given in Trading company. VMS Mosaic (talk) 02:20, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, see my followup just above, and wp:LISTN. An AFD cannot decide forever that the list-item inclusion standards must be so high.  Items can be red-links or black-links without articles.  I personally don't care about inclusion standards for this one list, and restricting inclusion to simply items known to be wikipedia-notable on their own is okay by me.  But continuing standards are for discussion at the list-article's talk page. -- do  ncr  am  16:42, 19 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:NOTDUP.-- danntm T C 05:43, 19 September 2014 (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.