Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of worlds largest companies

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was Keep

List of worlds largest companies
I hate to post it here, since the guy spent so much time on it, but... Mikkalai 03:46, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * First of all, "To list a page for deletion: 6. Follow the Add to this discussion link and write why, according to our deletion policy, the page should be deleted."
 * Sorry. The notion of "largest" is vague. How many to keep? Largest by what? Revenue? profit?head count? capitalization? Are you going to update it with each market move? Why don't you leave this information for those who can do this job best? Wall Street, Forbes, Guinness, whoever. This article is doomed to be hoplessly incorrect and out of date, IMO.Mikkalai 06:27, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Votes:
 * Keep. Deletion? Why? If anyone see any reason for this list to not be here please speak now. Jerryseinfeld 04:42, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. I don't see any reason to delete it except for one thing, this should be titled "List of World's Largest Companies by Revenue".  Also, it should say when and where this statistic is from.  Revth 05:34, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * I agree that it may just as well be called "List of companies by revenue" or "List of worlds largest companies by revenue". - Jerryseinfeld 06:50, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete (changed my vote). "Largest" is volatile term: imprecise and depending on time. Are you going to update it each quarterly report? Mikkalai 06:29, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Revenue for companies of this size should grow at roughly the same speed as GDP which is roughly 3% worldwide, so it'll probably take a long time before any numbers become grossly inaccurate. And if you ever read a quarterly report, now you know where to go and do some good with your new gained information. And remember that this is annual revenue and multiplying a quarter by four isn't always very accurate. - Jerryseinfeld 06:44, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * And secondly, whichever way you measure the size of a business, be it by revenue, assets, profits, employees, it's always going to be volatile. - Jerryseinfeld 06:44, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Which is why it doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. Delete.
 * I don't know where this whole effort comes from Mikkalai, every single data point in any encyclopedia is prone to change, and everything will change, all the time, that's the nature of man. - Jerryseinfeld 06:53, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * One thing that could however be added is that the numbers should reflect the fiscal year 2003. - Jerryseinfeld 06:56, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep, but perhaps rename, List of worlds largest companies by revenue. - SimonP
 * Keep, useful information. Davodd 12:29, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)
 * If the title is bad, move it, but don't delete this content. This article is useful and well-constructed, so I can't imagine why one would want to delete it. Keep. CHL 13:16, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * I hate lists. I really think they're not encyclopedic in any way.  When there is a poorly conceived list, it's worse.  "Largest" companies usually are those with most employees.  "Companies" is also misleading, since GE, for example, owns many companies.  Corporations are usually the really big guys out there.  If we don't distinguish between corporations and companies, and if we use "large" for "rich," we've got two big mistakes.  Therefore, if someone wishes to create a new article that addresses these two issues and then merge and redirect, that would be fine, but, if not, this is a misleading entry and should be deleted. Geogre 13:59, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * I'm not convinced of the validity of the article either, but I should point out that the distinction you make between 'company' and 'corporation' is an American usage. The word 'corporation' is rarely heard in Britain except in the names of very old firms. Our big firms (like BP, second on the list) are PLCs, which stands for 'Public Limited Company'. -- Necrothesp 14:14, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * FWIW some pretty big American corporations, such as The Boeing Company, officially call themselves "companies" rather than "corporations." (I'm about 99.9999% sure Boeing is a corporation!) [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 15:00, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * A company can be unincorporated. But it is extremely unilkely for larger firms. Mikkalai 16:42, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * No vote yet, leaning toward "keep." I'm not a list fan, but this looks OK to me. The imprecision of all such lists is intrinsic. If it's OK for Fortune to make such a list, why not us? The article defines how it measures size. I don't see a big problem with the information being dated as long as the date is given. If it's not updated than, say, in 2006 people will be able to judge that the ranking is probably still roughly correct for companies that are not closely ranked, but that the actual numbers are stale. The biggest problems I have with this article are: a) it doesn't give the source of the data, and b) I worry about what that source is and whether we could be dealing with a copyvio. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 15:00, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * There are various degrees imprecision. In this case IMO it is inacceptable. Fortune has resources and knowledge to maintain such a list. Leave it to Fortune. Mikkalai 16:42, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Rename if necessary, and note references, but keep. &#8212;Rory &#9786; 15:46, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)
 * Foor all you keepers maintaining this is useful information. It is useful, but it is misleading. (You know this old say about lie, big lie and statistics?) First, it is incomplete. Even Microsoft is missing. Second, it is actual only for particular finance report. Hence there should be a new list created each year. IMO it is doomed to be inaccurate. A fresh point: Someone already hurried to add "as of 2004" I am wondering what source delivers results for 2004? Not Forbes. I checked myself. Each line in such table must be easily verifiable, otherwise there is no confidence in our work. Mikkalai 16:42, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * The last entry in the table is a Turkcell with revenue 2.5. The first 1000 Forbes-listed companies have revenue over 4.37. Turkcell is somewhere between #1,300 and #1,400. Who is going to add these 1,200+ missing companies into the list? And maintain the list year to yea? I urge you to put more thinking and analyzing in voting on this issue.Mikkalai 16:42, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * As to "intrinsic imprecision": Of course, no one expects, e.g., List of the addresses of fictional characters to be neither complete nor precise. But there is no "intrinsic imprecision" in finansial data (not counting round-off). Mikkalai 17:58, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete as it is. Seemingly this is original research since no sources are provided. If not original research, whose researched list is this taken from? Are there other lists from other sources that disagree? Jallan 18:04, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Excellent point, Jallan. Delete please; original research, news, unmaintainable. - RedWordSmith 18:33, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete, unless sources are provided prior to expirationof VfD. Jallan is right. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 19:29, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC) P. S. I think an inline external link to the appropriate location on a corporate website would be perfectly adequate for this, even though corporate websites are frequently reshuffled. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 15:18, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep, I see no problem with maintainance or accuracy of data. All these companies have to publish annual reports. These numbers are no secret or hard-to-get information. Therefore it cannot possibly be orgininal research (as someone mentioned above). These numbers are on the websites of these companies and whoever compiles any such list anywhere, be it Forbes or Fortune, will take their data from annual statements. Of course the list is incomplete, because the author is still working on it. --Fenice 20:43, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * When he is done adding some 2,000 companies missing from the list, it will be outdated. Mikkalai 21:57, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Well, we could move it to List of the world's corporations with the highest revenue for Q1 2004. Imagine it!  A new list every quarter, each one perfectly accurate, and almost certainly important in a business context.   The Steve  10:05, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete - original research - T&#949;x  &#964;  ur&#949;  17:17, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep, what Fenice said. --Conti|&#9993; 17:58, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete as unmaintainable. If I may, I'd like to clear up a few misconceptions:  Rossami
 * The growth rate of these companies are not well correlated to the GDP growth rates. On average, that would be true but there is significant volatility for each company.  See, for example, the companies who move in and out of the Fortune 500 each year.
 * "Company" is the general term for any collection of people doing business as a unit. "Corporation" and "Public Limited Company" are specific examples of kinds of companies.  The distinction is based on their charter or articles of incorporation.
 * It is not true that "all these companies have to publish annual reports". In the US, only publicly traded companies are required to file reports of revenue.  Privately-held companies may choose to or be required to as the result of a bond covenant but that's no guarantee for our purposes.  In the UK, I believe that essentially all companies are required to report.  In Russia and Japan, essentially none do (unless they choose to be traded on a US stock market).
 * The data for these lists never comes solely from annual reports. Despite all the good intentions of GAAP, there is no single definition even for as simple a measure as revenue.  Fortune Magazine keeps dedicated staff who do nothing but all year and they still must rely on the active cooperation of the companies being evaluated.
 * Even if you do standardize the revenue calculation, the answers will be significantly skewed by difference in fiscal year reporting, currency fluctuations, etc.
 * Keep. I like lists, although this one should be renamed List of world largest stock listed companies --Pgreenfinch 14:37, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Agree w/ Pgreenfinch. Lists are good. If contents are inaccurate, edit boldly! jni 14:15, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Agreed w/ Rossami (thanks for the excellent commentary). Wile E. Heresiarch 19:35, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Also agree w/ Rossami. Suggestion for what to do instead: have some kind of article where you discuss the difficulties of determining the world's largest companies and then link to the pages on websites like Forbes or Fortune which list their Fortune 500, etc., lists. --Lowellian 20:11, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)
 * Seems nice on paper, except that you lose all the wiki links to the detailed article for each company. The good thing in wikipedia lists is precisely that possibility.--Pgreenfinch 22:03, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete - Just doesn't seem like it belongs here. Chuck 02:39, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep Suggest limiting the # of companies (500? 1000?) and make the list for a single year or fiscal year, thus eliminating both maintainance and accuracy complaints. The Steve  05:06, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)
 * Comment: Limiting the list to a single year solves some of the maintenance concerns but does not resolve the inherent accuracy problems. Rossami 14:18, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Agree with Pgreenfinch and Thesteve Stock listed companies and updated quarterly. --Viriditas 09:24, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep as long as I don't need to maintain it ;-) . The "should we keep lists" discussion has come and gone, and consensus was to keep lists. Kim Bruning 17:47, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Mark Richards 19:15, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. I reconsidered my opinion. It must be kept, provided that
 * reasonable criteria for inclusion  in the list must be set that will allow the list to be maintainable;
 * a notice about its incompleteness must be dded and kept until the list is completed. Mikkalai 21:30, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * keep William M. Connolley 21:32, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC).
 * Keep. Reasonable information, which might be of interest to readers. Sources must be mentioned. Andris 23:58, Sep 24, 2004 (UTC)


 * Keep - excellent encyclopaedic work but needs improvement - pir 13:24, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.