Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SHI International Corp (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Some spurious keep arguments here but clearly no consensus to delete.  A  Train talk 08:27, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

SHI International Corp
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

trivial awards, no other notability. Refs are basically PR (I found these and other nomination today look at the oldest unreviewed articles.Assitance there would be appreciated)  DGG ( talk ) 09:57, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 15:05, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 15:05, 7 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep Being the largest female-owned business in the US would in my opinion make this notable per these two reliable sources: 1, 2.--Pontificalibus  (talk) 16:22, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete -- The claims don't stand up. "The 15th largest ..." is from a press release. More than half of the references are from the company's own website or businesswire -- which is not an independent reliable source. A bunch of the references are dupes, giving the impression of a long list, which it isn't. And yes, a SPA wrote it. Rhadow (talk) 18:07, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I have no opinion as yet on keeping or deleting, but must say that I have serious doubts about the "largest female-owned business in the US" claim. Did these sources really check the ownership of every larger business to ascertain that it is true? Do records of ownership even indicate the sex of shareholders when it isn't obvious from their names? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 11:09, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment----Please go through 2017091410026541 and SHI International.Regards:) Winged Blades of Godric On leave 09:44, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep 7.5 billion turnover. Nothing else matters. Also on three of Forbes' large business lists.
 * This is an awful article, admittedly. No useful content, lots of puff, lots of puff sources. But WP just does not get to turn its back on a business this size and say "You don't exist". Andy Dingley (talk) 11:34, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Merge though. We seem to have two on the same business. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:36, 10 October 2017 (UTC)


 * I nominated it because of what looked like inconsistent statements. If they have a $7.5 billion dollar revenue, why does the article find it necessary to say as one of its highlights under operations that "SHI was named to a $13.7 million contract option " Contracts of that sort are not the distinguishing feature of a company that size. The article also claims that  its principal operation is "managing over $1 billion in customers’ Microsoft cloud assets " $1 billion in managed assets is not a $1 billion income or turnover. The Forbes award is for a "medium-sized business-- and its for "best employer", which is not a meaningful  designation, as it is based on no real criterion. (all the other awards are equally menaingless or non-secific) Apparently the 7.5 billion figure is real, so WP should not "turn its back" n the business--it should delete this article and write a proper one. DGG ( talk ) 15:23, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
 * There are several aspects to this company: one is retail IT sales, one (the newer) is services. Margins in retail IT hardware are minimal, so large turnover doesn't imply large profits. This article, and its puffery, is presenting it as if it's a services company on a par with Accenture et al. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:28, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. Important company documented by Bloomberg. The article's current quality is not a reason for deletion. Needs to be merged with SHI International.--Ipigott (talk) 09:43, 11 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep People are perfectly happy to keep an article about some random cookie brand with similar issues and a similar reference list, so it shouldn’t be an issue to keep this one either. Dysklyver  15:53, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep per https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidewalt/2015/05/27/thai-lee-shi-international/ Stuartyeates (talk) 20:21, 11 October 2017 (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.