- CLSA (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)
well-known, influential, and privately held company that clearly satisfies the notability requirement, documentable sources
867xx5209 01:11, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Do a google or yahoo search on the key words: CLSA and "Hong Kong" (to distinguish it from potential other uses of the initials C,L,S,A) and you get approximately 100,000 entries. How is that neither significant or notable? Do a similar keyword search on most other Wiki entries and see how many instances you retrieve by comparison.
- 202.82.31.75 03:25, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The admin who deleted this without discussion needs to explain the reasoning.
- Chance in HK 03:28, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Counter-Argument Fine, but do a little RESEARCH of google hits to investigate the web-based articles themselves and decide whether a subject is notable or not. Isn't that what an encyclopedia requires: research? Or is that too much bother?867xx5209 07:21, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment to the Comment Admin should look into this user's obsessive activities with regard to the aforementioned Ulrich article. In Wikipedia nomenclature, the user is a classic TROLL in the repeated and persistent misuse of Wikipedia's processes. This 72, who seems to change IP addresses every week, (why? to avoid yet another Admin block?) ought to find better, more constructive use of what s/he alleges on own talk page to be a Mensa-level intelligence. Perhaps 72 could contribute content, edit articles, or add links rather than looking for ways to vandalize, er - speedily delete legitimate entries. 867xx5209 07:21, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Counter-Argument The one who requested the CSD, 72, "believes" puppets are involved. You're basing your argument on alleged beliefs, not facts. If we apply this line of reasoning, we would ignore your argument in tallying the level of "consensus". Why? because how do we know you're not a puppet of Spartaz?867xx5209 07:32, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Counter-Counter - If I was a sock of Spartaz, I would not say "per Spartaz"> I would just repeat his comment, which is what all of the inclusionist DRV requesters here are doing. --tennisman 14:18, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- overthrow as an incorrect use of speedy, without any comment on actual notability. The speedy reason given is "not assert significance". The first sentence of the article is: "CLSA is an award-winning brokerage house covering the Asia-Pacific Markets from a headquarters in Hong Kong. " That is a clear assertion of significance. If speedy is overused, it puts the trustworthiness of the procedure at risk. We shouldn't cut corners in deletion. DGG 20:52, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong overturn. i agree with DGG. "award-winning brokerage house" is a claim of notability. So is "...its reputation among clients - largely worldwide fund managers - for independence in its brokerage research". So is "Over the years, CLSA's analysts and research teams have won numerous awards. Perennial winners in the past decade were..." It might not have survived an AfD -- at a minimum substantiation of those claims by reliable sources would be needed. But the bar for A7 is supposed to be considerably lower than at an AfD. Any "assert[ion] the importance or significance of its subject" is enough that an A7 is improper. Can anyone really say that an article that says its subject is an award-winning firm, has a positive reputation among world-wide fund managers, and has multiple employees who are perennial award winners over a decade has failed to assert the importance and significance of the subject? I am seeing far to many cases where an A7 delete is being made on the grounds that there weren't enough sources, implicitly setting the A7 rule to "I don't think it would pas an AfD in its current state. Part of the point of an AfD, after all, is that objections can be answered, often by improving the article. The same is true of WP:PROD. I think editors, and particularly deleting admins, need to be reminded of just what the standard for A7 is supposed to be. See WT:CSD#A7 Scope again for a longer discussion of the general issue. DES (talk) 00:46, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- To DGG and DES: I placed a
{{Warn-article}} on the talk page for CLSA at the same time that I flagged Gary Coull (see talk page), and that one was declined; the admin who closed this one apparently did not want to give the author more time to respond or add WP:Attribution to support the assertion ... this is exactly the kind of Too Hasty deletion that I have been trying to address for the six weeks with my draft protocols and warning templates, so I'll take some of the heat for having used a CSD instead of a PROD; quite simply, I was distracted at the time by matters outside of Wikipedia, I exercised poor judgment in my choice of alternatives, and I did not wait long enough between posting the warnings and actually tagging the article, so I violated my own protocol, and here we are at DrV ... OTOH, User:867xx5209's continued personal attacks against me on this page (and others outside of user space), coupled with their failure to respond to any of the messages that I have posted on numerous article and user talk pages, have left me no recourse but to file this report of their activities on Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets ... and if this article is restored and taken to AfD, then it will also reopen the WP:COI/N case of User:Pulrich from a month ago (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 13), since it was recreated primarily to support his agenda of promoting his wife, Jing Ulrich ... BTW, my IP changed (again) a few hours ago, and I'm trying to update sandboxes and other pages to reflect the new ID, but have been interrupted by having to address this very upsetting matter ASAP. —72.75.85.234 15:14, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I gather from this that you are agreeing with and extending what I said, not arguing against it?DGG 19:30, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I admit that I might have been a little trigger-happy with deleting the article. I was initially hesitant but deleted it because I thought it was just a recreation of a unopposed deletion; I should have checked the previous deleted version and noticed that it had a different creator. I agree with taking this to AfD. —Anas talk? 20:08, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Affirmative ... my stressed evil twin did the CSD, whereas under normal circumstances, I would have done a PROD ... the warning placed on the talk page before tagging it asked the admins to to leave a message on the author's talk page (and perhaps I should modify the template to suggest changing a CSD to a PROD as an alternative to keep/delete "on sight"), so blame this one on an overzealous deletionist admin ... but given the circumstances, I believe that even you can see why it was hard for me to assume good faith regarding this particular editor, who apparently has never heard of the official policy regarding No personal attacks and its consequences. (Do you think that I have been acting like a TROLL in this matter, as alleged by this sockpuppet User:867xx5209?)
- By all means, I endorse restoration and immediately taking it to AfD for Consensus and to allow more time for improvement by adding Attribution to Verify the assertion ... after all, that kind of research is the responsibility of the author, even though some WikiGnomes are willing to invest the resources in finding reliable sources for unsubstantiated claims of notability ... but it's obviously "too much bother" (to use their own words) for this particular author to do it themselves. :-)
- As for the above comment by User:Anas, the jury is still out on whether or not "different" creators are involved, since I cannot access the edit history of either incarnation to confirm meatpuppet activity by multiple editors residing in Hong Kong. —72.75.85.234 20:55, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn and list at AFD per DES. I am concerned that the lines DES cited might make the article look a bit promotional, but if the awards are true or significant, there is a clear assertion at least. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:49, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Stong Overturn to Allow Time for Introduction of References and Citations
- Rationale: Notabiity for Feed Article to CLSA Demonstrated: I recently established notability for Gary Coull, CLSA's co-founder, through links to three detailed, online obituaries in London's Financial Times and The Times newspapers as well as in FinanceAsia magazine. (Thanks to those who subsequently formatted the additions properly.) If a company's co-founder is notable, it is easy enough to do the same for the company, which continues after his death and has even more online references than he had.867xx5209 07:36, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- FYI, User:867xx5209, "those who subsequently formatted the additions properly" in Gary Coull (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) are in fact the self-same TROLL that you accused on the article's talk page as having "not much useful in the way of content or language skills to contribute to Wikipedia" and "getting admins in cohoots to delete the article" ... you're welcome, BTW. —72.75.85.234 11:04, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
|
