Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SK Holdings

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 was merge all into SK Group. - KrakatoaKatie 06:21, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] SK Holdings

SK Holdings (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Article fails WP:CORP, WP:NOT, WP:SPAM and WP:COI. Article appears to heavily maintained by an WP:SPA account with no other edits other than to SK Related Articles. There is no reason for the creation multiple stub articles when they can be merged into the main Article SK Group.

I am also nominating the following related be merged or deleted for the same:

Hu12 09:30, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Merge all to SK Group and check for COI. Dbromage [Talk] 09:38, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions. --Gavin Collins 09:39, 24 August 2007 (UTC)--
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletions. -- PC78 10:07, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge all per Dbromage. PC78 10:07, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge all per above. Note that such a remedy will make Template:SK Group useless, and that should be deleted. MER-C 11:33, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment. Template:SK Group and Category:SK Group now nominated for deletion. Dbromage [Talk] 11:54, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
      • I've closed both of these discussions. We do not need to have this discussion in three places. ×Meegs 15:41, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep There is every reason to create separate articles when the companies are individually notable in their sectors, as it facilitates accurate categorisation. The fact that one person has had to create all these articles is a manifestation of systemic bias. The SK Group is a $75.8 billion entity ranked 98th on the Fortune Global 500, making it larger than many American groups with bucketfuls of articles. Postlebury 12:54, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak keep if thoroughly cleaned up, and merge all to SK Group. This is apparently a group of businesses traded on a major stock exchange, which would appear to meet WP:CORP. But the quality of the prose is absolutely vile: With Korea’s largest market share in both sectors, SK is emerging as an enterprise leader in the global marketplace. - Smerdis of Tlön 13:52, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep all How on earth can the nominator think one of the world's largest companies fails WP:CORP? Golfcam 14:37, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment - the subjects are notable, however if the articles were redirected towards the group article for now, we wouldn't be losing much sourced content. Addhoc 17:06, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge all until secondary sources are included and COI removed per Dbromage. Addhoc 17:06, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge as SK Group. Articles are woefully small, and it smacks of spam. Also, have a word with the creator! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 17:50, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Separate articles may attract contributions from readers with interests in different business sectors, and are necessary for categorisation purposes. Brandon97 19:15, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep These are all multi-billion dollar companies, and there is no rule against articles about subsidiary companies, which are very common. Piccadilly 23:52, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment. Notability is not in question here. Dbromage [Talk] 23:13, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge All on grounds of non-notability WP:Corp per Hu12. Subsidiary companies do not have any notabilty in their own right, and should be merged into SK Holdings, a stock exchange listed company. The alternative is to give the green light to the creation of lots of other non-notable subsidiary artices such as SK Pizzas, SK Dry Cleaners, and SK Realtors etc etc. --Gavin Collins 18:11, 27 August 2007 (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.