Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lists of companies

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 of the debate was keep. Woohookitty(cat scratches) 11:34, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lists of companies

Nominating all Lists of companies type articles (collected in Lists of companies) with named exceptions and others that may be proposed. Virtually all these violate WP:NOT on potentially a number of grounds, eg: not ... a repository of links point 2: "Mere collections of internal links, except for disambiguation pages when an article title is ambiguous, and for structured lists to assist with the organisation of articles." That they do so can be seen by the fact that almost all can be, and indeed many have been, supplemented or replaced by categories. Some, however, such as List of commercial pairs, seem just pointless. By the way, I know this may annoy people who've worked on those lists, and may have been discussed before and I missed it, in which case, sorry in advance.

Just to clarify that this is a nomination for a class of articles, except where there are specific reasons to make an exception. I attached the AfD to the Lists of companies article because it surveys that class. I've also added notices in a couple of places - but not on every list that falls in this class. Further to clarify that this is not a nomination for immediate deletion, but for conversion to categories/merger with company articles. Rd232 talk 13:15, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
Named exceptions:
Some examples of lists proposed for deletion (collected in Lists of companies) | categories they duplicate or overlap with


Delete. Any notable companies will have Wiki articles, and these can be collected via Categories. Lists are redundant and vulnerable to cruft. - Just zis Guy, you know? 12:18, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
There are still five FTSE 100 Index companies without articles so there must be huge numbers of major companies without artilces outside the English speaking world. Bhoeble 22:01, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
That's an argument for creating stubs, or possibly a list of companies that should have articles but don't (Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles), not to have these lists in general. Rd232 talk 22:28, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
Incidentally it occurs to me I didn't make it clear that I would expect a Delete result to be implemented over a period of time, as companies are removed from lists when it is confirmed they are in appropriate categories. No loss of information is intended, only restructuring. Rd232 talk 22:34, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
To see which important companies remain to have an entry written on them, you can look at the entry on a stock market index, which will list its constituents. DocendoDiscimus 22:39, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
I'd rather have red links in wikipedia to look at. Much easier, and I only need one web browser open. CalJW 01:43, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
If red links to identify missing articles are the aim then a list aimed specifically at that purpose will achieve it much better. Rd232 talk 07:36, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Let's stick with categories -- much, much easier to maintain. - Afelton 17:29, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep all Lists do not replace categories as they cannot have links. All the list can be improved with further information in the long run. As it is the country lists provide an overall alphabetical list, which the categories do not as they have been partially subdivided by sector. In any case the nomination should be void as the nominator doesn't seem to have tagged the articles. Bhoeble 21:59, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
"Lists do not replace categories as they cannot have links." - can you clarify that please.
I presume (s)he meant red links. CalJW 01:43, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
Which means missing company articles, which brings me back to "List of missing company articles".
" All the lists can be improved with further information in the long run." - how? any detailed information on companies should go into company articles
The same as any other model list. They could contain a few basic details like sector and turnover so people can decide if they want to look at the article. I'm confident that these sorts of quality enhancements will become more common as wikipedia matures. CalJW 01:43, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
Which will be even harder to maintain, especially as the lists continue to expand to cover the ever-increasing number of company articles. This goes in the direction of a database on companies, which a simple central, manually-maintained list is extraordinarily bad for. If we created lists by bot from company articles my objections to lists would disappear. They could exract data from templates to make lists with more data than just company names. Rd232 talk 07:36, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
"country lists provide an overall alphabetical list, which the categories do not as they have been partially subdivided by sector." - if we want an overall list (I'm not sure why we do - seems vaguely WP:NOTish) we can do that by listing companies in the top country category as well as subcategories, which would be much more maintainable.
That would be against the general policy on catgorisation, and there would be no way to ensure that it was done consistently and it would make a mess of things by pushing some of the subcategories off of the first page where there were more than 200 articles. CalJW 01:43, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
True. So perhaps have a Lists subcategory specifically to create alphabetised lists without conflicting with standard categorisation. Consistency of application is surely as bad or worse with categories as with lists. Rd232 talk 07:36, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
"In any case the nomination should be void as the nominator doesn't seem to have tagged the articles." - are you really suggesting that in order to debate the principle we need to tag every instance (of which there are dozens)? Rd232 talk 22:24, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
I don't know about the other user, but I sometimes tag dozens of categories on Categories for deletion. If you want to wipe out a vast amount of other users' work, you owe them the courtesy of inviting them to participate in the debate. CalJW 01:45, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
I posted this AfD at Wikipedia talk:Lists and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Business and Economics. I guess I didn't think the proposal was likely enough to succeed to go through tagging all the individual lists. Rd232 talk 07:40, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
If we created lists by bot, they would be a good deal less complete. And it isn't going to happen in the forseeable future. CalJW 19:46, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete - provided it is done such that no information is lost. Categories are much more flexible. - DocendoDiscimus 22:39, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
It cannot be done without losing information. Do you want them deleted, with information lost, or do you want them kept? Those are the options. CalJW 01:38, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
"It cannot be done without losing information." - my premise was that only lists whose content can be transferred to company articles should be deleted, once that has been done. Rd232 talk 07:43, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Categories are just automatically generated lists, and are less flexible in many ways and more flexible in none. Kappa 06:48, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment I'd like to vote, but despite that big paragraph up there, I'm really confused as to what I am actually voting on. Can this somehow be reformatted and/or name particular articles instead of saying "all of this type"? If I don't know what the names of all the articles up for deletion are, how can I know whether they are of any use or not? --Jacqui ★ 23:19, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Weak keep I have tried to do some research, and I can't really see why these lists need to go. Then again, I still don't think I completely understand your arguments, at least partially due do the confusing format of this AfD. --Jacqui ★ 14:22, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is an obvious case for categories, not lists. MCB 23:30, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
Why? Must major subject areas use both. This subject area should for the usual reasons. CalJW 01:47, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep all. BlankVerse ∅ 23:33, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep all, categories cannot provide structure or be annotated, in particular they cannot include alternate or old names for a single company. Users should not have to guess the contents of articles. Also this AFD is invalid because the pages in question have not been tagged and we can't even see them. Kappa 01:22, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
    Alternate or old names should be redirects, and mentioned in company articles, not buried on lists somewhere. Rd232 talk 07:36, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
    I see, so people who only know the "wrong" name can find another encyclopedia. Kappa
    WTF? If you were a newbie I'd assume you didn't know what a redirect was. As it is, I've no idea what you're on about. Rd232 talk 11:41, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
    Are you familiar with the concept of an index? Kappa 14:01, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
    Indexes make sense in many offline paper contexts, but not in Wikipedia. If/when electronic books replace paper ones, they won't need indexes either. I refer the honourable gentleman again to WP:NOT "mirror or a repository of links" point 2. Rd232 talk 14:19, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
    Um if we don't need indexes, we don't need categories either. Kappa 15:38, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
    Categories aid in finding similar objects, if that's what people want. They're unobtrusive at the bottom of pages, and are more wiki because more decentralised. People working on company articles are for more likely to add it to appropriate categories than to update a list - not least because it doesn't require editing a separate page. Categories of this type are simply a more maintainable version of lists. Rd232 talk 18:28, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
    Categories are not wiki. They are easy to add to, but they are extremely difficult to reorganize, often requiring bots. They are an inferior version of lists, because they cannot include alternate names for the same thing, and cannot describe or disambiguate what the link target is. Kappa 03:39, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
    Then why have these types of category? I'd prefer deleting those to having a schizophrenic system. Ah forget it, the categories aren't going anywhere and neither are the lists. Why not at least have bots collect missing cat entries (maybe in separate file to avoid collision and mess, eg List/category but not list. Rd232 talk 07:13, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
    As I noted at the very top, Lists of companies surveys the class. If you want to look at instances of the class, go there. Rd232 talk 07:36, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep I had the second most edits in September because of the amount of categorisation work I did, but I had no intention of superseding lists. CalJW 01:36, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Your intention in September isn't an argument. Your basis for that intention is. Rd232 talk 07:36, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
      • I have made a good deal of effort to explain that elsewhere, but you have brushed it all aside. I think the fact that being a proponent of categories in no way biases me against lists is relevant. I understand that the way wikipedia uses multiple organisation systems, some of which are preferred by some people, some by others, is one of its great strengths. You seem not to, and to want to wipe out the system which is not your personal favourite. CalJW 19:43, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
        • I don't have much use for either. But yes, it's clear that this schizophrenia is a result of some editors preferring lists and others categories. But I don't think having both doing the same thing half as well as picking one system and sticking with it helps readers. Rd232 talk 07:13, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment - is it really legit to put a whole series of articles up for deletion without adding AfD templates to the articles listed for deletion? I don't think this a valid listing. Guettarda 02:13, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Clearly enough people think this for it to be taken seriously - individual probably couldn't be deleted without individual AfDs. But if I'd picked an individual list as a test case (a) it would be an arbitrary choice (b)less people might have participated (c) it would risk confusing specifics with the general principle (d) if the decision to convert to categories were made, it might have been less effective as policy. Rd232 talk 07:36, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
      • So what would the outcome of a "Delete" vote be? Re-listing each individual article? And would a "Keep" vote in any way preclude listing inividual articles? Guettarda 12:42, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
        • I would expect it to be a strong precedent, no more, no less. If the result were Delete, I would suggest making a template to attach to each list explaining the conversion is happening and what it involves and that when done the article will be deleted. (Conversion being the gradual removal of links from the list as it is confirmed that the article is in the appropriate category.) If anybody felt that a particular list should be an exception (beyond those already identified and possibly additional ones still to be agreed), they could create an individual AfD to try and confirm consensus to that effect. (A note on that should be in the template.) Conversion would take some time so there would be plenty of opportunity for challenging individual cases. Rd232 talk 13:48, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
          • Ok, in that case I can't support this process. Guettarda 14:31, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep all, I just found out about this vote. I must say Wikipedia isn't even quite as widespread as it could be. I feel its just too soon to write off this whole area as being bad. my sentiments would be keep it, give it more time. Areas that are growing and contributing something useful- can stay. Things that are going nowhere can be pruned/removed. As more persons come on board to Wikipedia, in time they'll contribute more knowledge on these companies. I have no problem with the proposal of certain bad articles up for delete or stub criteria, esp. if a company article looks totally like nothing more then an advertisement, but I think more companies will be added in the future. My findings are everything that should- be on Wikipedia probably wont be there overnight. CaribDigita 02:57, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
    Am I misreading you? It sounds like you think I'm suggesting we delete company articles, or company lists before the information is available elsewhere, neither fo which is the case. Rd232 talk 07:36, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep All. This is a silly, invalid nomination. You want an article deleted, you nominate IT. Don't come here, asking for permission to wade through Wikipedia willy-nilly, deleting various lists that we won't have a full debate on because you don't feel like nominating them individually so we can review them individually. Unfocused 03:13, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
    I never intended to do any wading myself, I just wanted a debate. Which we are having without the need for me to waste time tagging and untagging articles for which exactly the same arguments apply. If Delete, I would (have) expect(ed) others to implement the conversion, and there could always be additional AfDs on specific lists if there was disagreement. Rd232 talk 07:36, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, lists can sort articles in other ways than just alphabetically. They can contain redlinks to articles which should exist but don't. In other words: Categories don't replace lists. - Mgm|(talk) 10:47, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
    They can but most of these don't; I suggested keeping List of companies by revenue, which does. I also suggested List of missing company articles, and there are many variations on that more specific purpose which would be better than these generic lists. These lists can be replaced by categories. Rd232 talk 11:36, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
    If "they can but [they] don't," then this is an argument for cleanup, not an AfD debate (or even a whole bunch hopelessly snarled together). Let's make the lists more useful instead of killing them off; you yourself said it was possible. --Jacqui ★ 14:24, 27 October 2005 (UTC
    As more companies are added, companies merge, etc, these lists have to be updated. Typically (or should I say occasionally), this is done by the person who adds or changes an entry (pick a continental European country and look at the editing history of the list..). The information tends to come from the entries/categories, and is then added to the list (not the other way round). In other words, the lists are a (weak) mirror of the categories. The clean up you suggest will be futile - once all the information is added, it is out of date. DocendoDiscimus 15:03, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
    Jacqui may have misunderstood what I said. When I said "they can but most of these don't" I was responding to the statement that "lists can sort articles in other ways than just alphabetically". I see no good way to improve these lists with additional sorting that can't be done by (sub)categories. Any such improvement wouldn't be "cleanup" either, it would be structural development. However DocendoDiscimus' point about cleanup is well made and the fundamental reason for the proposal. Rd232 talk 18:35, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
That statemment borders on the absurd. Subcategories can only contain names in alphabetical lists with no additional information about the entries. Lists can be sorted in dozens of ways (turnover; location, sector, assets, structure, ownership, profitablity etc etc) and can contain several pieces of information about each item. There are some excellent lists on some other topics. It is a pity that Wikipedia's coverage of companies is one of its weakest areas, but there is plenty of time to improve it. CalJW 19:23, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
I think you'll find your statement across the border from absurd. You can't possibly have seriously thought through the maintainability implications of doing this widely, much beyond just List of companies by revenue (which is just revenue, and just top global companies). Imagine List of British companies by turnover, List of British companies by location, List of British companies by sector, List of British companies by assets, List of British comapnies by profitability, List of British companies by employment, List of British companies by location and turnover.... That's a fricken' companies database (which I happen to have some familiarity with). Maintainability of the companies lists is bad enough with just names; how would it be with all that extra information to find and update on an annual or quarterly basis? And why should we keep lists that now do nothing that categories (supplemented with specialised redlink lists) can't because one day they might (pigs might fly) turn into the absurdity of a companies database maintained in wikitext form? If Wikipedia is ever to do something along those lines, it will have to involve templates and probably a software change. Wikipedia should only store detailed up-to-date company data in one place - the company article. Anything else is, well, absurd. Rd232 talk 21:03, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
Hmmph, it seems that some people seriously believe Wiki can be like Bloomberg - but then without the 100's of paid staff to keep the database (semi)-complete. So who's going to be put up for NY mayor nomination? DocendoDiscimus 21:20, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - I don't support the idea of deleting articles en bloc. They should be nominated and considered individually. Guettarda 14:31, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
    Since the intention is not to delete any information, but onyl change structure, I disagree. But I appear to be in the minority. Rd232 talk 18:35, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
    There are for instance 84 lists of companies by country. Do you really think it makes sense to have 84 seperate discussions? DocendoDiscimus 15:03, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Every list is of different quality and of interest to different people. They should be treated the same way as any other article. But there is no need to have any of those 84 discussions, as there was no need for this one. This debate could have been about deleting all lists (with the odd named exception), without giving notice to the people who use the lists and are therefore stakeholders in them. Would that have been appropriate too? CalJW 19:34, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - As per the majority of comments above. --Vivenot 14:53, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Summary - the case is that lists which solely duplicate category functionality are better off as categories, especially if they duplicate actually existing categories. This is more maintainable. Lists should only exist as lists if there is a reason: eg List of companies by revenue and List of missing company articles. All others simply more work than categories to no great purpose. With voting at 8/4 keep/delete, I still see no convincing argument for preferring lists to categories. Rd232 talk 18:28, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Question - since a fair proportion of discussion is about process rather than substance, is it worth AfD'ing List of Afghan companies, List of aerial lift manufacturers and List of companies traded at BOVESPA as test cases? If yes, how many of the 84+ country and sector lists do we need to debate individually before the principle is established either way? Or should we just continue to debate in general terms? Rd232 talk 15:48, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
    • There is no need for any further debate. All you will do is waste a lot of other users' time which could be put to better use. Things like the Afghan list are valuable as a starting point for coverage of countries where Wikipedia is weak. There is no reasonable doubt which way the debate would go, so please don't behave like a school deletionist and merrily waste wikipedia's human resources on a lost cause. CalJW 18:38, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
      • I think that's unwarranted because (a) school deletion is about notability, which is irrelevant here; (b) I was open to persuasion but nothing that anybody has said has convinced me to prefer lists instead of categories for these cases; (c) because lists are harder to maintain they long-term waste far more time than any AfD (d) a 2/3 - 1/3 vote is not a "lost cause" when the keep voting is based, as far as I can see, on no good arguments. For example, "Things like the Afghan list are valuable as a starting point" says absolutely nothing about why lists that can be converted to categories are better than categories, or why lists that duplicate categories should exist. Rd232 talk 19:06, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
        • Because red links can be added to it of course, which is a lot easier than writing stubs, but does encourage others to do more. This is a basic point which has been made on articles for deletion scores of times. You need 70% support for deletion, you are now at 30%, and the early flurry of support was rather freakish as the principle that categories do not replace lists has been confirmed over and over again. CalJW 19:16, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
I agree with CalJW that the general opinion here seems to move towards a keep vote. I do hope that those who argue in favor of keeping the lists, will show the same fervour in actually improving them. The believe that some seem to have that the existence of certain lists will get people to add more and better articles is admirable, but in my mind rather naive. Should those 'keep' voter feel so inclined though, please do become member of the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Business and Economics improvement drive. DocendoDiscimus 19:24, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment - not sure where this vote/debate should lead, but added external link to Companies House web site for company info. to List of British companies, hope you'll all find this a useful primary source for British companies, at least. Sloman 19:03, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Sure. Links to that and things like Hoovers would be useful from List of missing company articles. Rd232 talk 19:06, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
      • We already have lists of missing company articles in the form of red links on the existing lists, which are more spedific and can therefore be more precisely categorised so they will be seen by more people with relevant knowledge. It is implausible that a single central list would be more effective. CalJW 19:27, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
        • I agree that a single central list doesn't make sense. But do you believe the red links that are currently in the lists are in any way a sign of missing articles? Most red links are put in as linkspam. One of the few ways of having some objectiveness in what constitutes a major company is the inclusion in a stock market index. And these index entries already (should) list their constituents, including red links. DocendoDiscimus 19:40, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
          • There are many valid red links. If some of the lists need be to cleaned up the appropriate response is to clean them up rather than to delete them. Any company which would surive afd is also a legitimate link, and any links for companies which would not that may exist are hardly taking up a lot of space or causing a major distraction. Not all major companies are listed by any means. There are many multi-billion dollar private and state owned companies, as well as many subsidiaries which merit articles, and indeed plenty of subsidiaries which have them (ASDA, Bank of Scotland and Abbey are three very large British examples). CalJW 19:54, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
            • I agree that in theory it sounds like a great plan - someone sees the list, adds companies (or subsidiaries) that are missing, and then later someone else sees there's a company without an entry, so (s)he starts writing it. Unfortunately, that's not how it has been done until now. Please check the histories of the lists, and you'll see that typically few people bother to add anything, unless it's because they've changed another entry. Having lists just because you hope that at one point in future they will actually have any purpose doesn't make sense IMHO. Instead of trying to get the lists to mirror the categories, people should focus their energies on adding company templates etc. - DocendoDiscimus 20:22, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and improve makes more sense than destroying what has already been done. Carina22 19:10, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep (just for now), as said before the general consensus seems to be to keep the lists. If they are a structured list, they can still be of help to some of us in developing categories. In keeping them we still have something to gain from them and nothing to lose. In deleting them, we have something to lose but nothing to gain. I say only delete them, if the majority of us no longer find them of any use.
  • Comment - it appears that enough people wish to keep lists. But surely a proposal to delete the categories would fair even worse. Yet the present situation leads to the following:
    • List of Austrian companies lacks 14 existing articles that are in the cat, - eg Atomic Skis; and has two errors (AMAG not disambiged; Steyr links to town not company) whilst Category:Companies of Austria lacks 8 existing articles that are in the list, as well as the famous redlinked companies. Neither list nor cat links to the other. Even Lists of companies doesn't mention the existence of the categories. How is this schizophrenia productive? Rd232 talk 22:27, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Where was the proposal to delete categories?
      • Nowhere I know of. I said "would". Rd232 talk 23:49, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Suggestion - Wouldn't it be good practice to always have the lists linked to the categories and visa versa? I've seen this discipline in other topics and they seem to be a good double check for each other.
      • Better than nothing. Rd232 talk 23:49, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep for reasons already given. Honbicot 23:00, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
    • If I weren't so tired of this subject I'd ask you to state those reasons in your own words, because I still I don't see any good reason to duplicate categories with lists or vice versa. Never mind though. I have no objections to somebody closing this discussion as despite some support for the general idea it clearly isn't going anywhere. Rd232 talk 23:49, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep all. Lots of red links, A lot of work to be done. NSR (talk) 11:00, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment While lists are certainly useful, even if there are categories, I find the list of companies too large, spam-targets and almost always incomplete (Note: This is from my own experience as I watch the List of Indian companies, which is fairly small.). It would be better to break down the list into smaller and more managable lists. But I am not in favour of and overnight deletion or a blanket policy. If it suits you, use it or if it doesn't, replace it with a better solution. --Pamri • Talk • Reply 17:51, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep All I found the 'article' very useful, although I would also support its replacement with a category containing all the same information. Dont just delete it unless you're prepared to replace it. 88.105.251.6
Categorizification for lists not retained was part of the deletion proposal. Rd232 talk 18:47, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. The lists by industry/sector may be the most productive ones. For those who don't want to use them, they may just igore them. IMHO, there is no point in having "List of missing company articles" in article namespace. It should be moved to Wikipedia:List of missing company articles or deleted. -- User:Docu
    • re namespace - I know, I was tired and in a hurry. Please move it if you think it worth keeping. Rd232 talk 00:30, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
      • Ok, I moved it for now. -- User:Docu
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.