Talk:BBY Limited

This article was nominated for deletion. Review prior discussions if considering re-nomination:

Keep, April 26, 2009, see discussion.
No Consensus, April 9, 2009, see discussion.

Business Low‑importance

	Business portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Politics Low‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Australia: Sydney Low‑importance

	Australia portal BBY Limited is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Sydney (assessed as Low-importance).
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Should BBY Management Be Included[edit]

Management of the Business is general fact, it does not deter from the rest of the content on the article. User LibStar suggests that it should not be included.

no, see Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Lists_of_people. stop editing as if you're working for the company. LibStar (talk) 14:06, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is BRW East Coles Survey Results Notable?[edit]

A result in the top 15-20 brokerage houses in BRW'S Annual the Deal Makers Special is by far noteworthy. Those indivduals familar with Australia's financial industry would certainly aggree.

Image copyright problem with File:Cimb logo.png[edit]

The image File:Cimb logo.png is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --04:45, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Recent back and forth[edit]

I would suggest with respect to the changes that keep being made, reverted and re-made

List of management - I agree with LibStar that the list is really unnecessary here. If you want to add someone that is truly notable to the infobox, I would be supportive but it would need to be value-added to the article
9th Place Ranking - I think this is kind of an odd debate and would side with Zip1010 that it can be included to give context to the article. My first impression is that it is not really great marketing to tout a #9 ranking.

I would note to Zip1010 that, if you are an employee of this company, it is really important that you adhere to the highest standards regarding conflicts in this article. As you are aware, this article is not a vehicle for marketing. |► ϋrбanяeneωaℓ • TALK ◄| 01:10, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there is consensus to include the 9th place. Wikipedia articles report notable information not minor rankings. LibStar (talk) 11:32, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with User:Urbanrenewal, including the BRW Result provides some context and helps demonstrate the company's notability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ansonrosew (talk • contribs) 11:53, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BBY in the Media[edit]

Stokes stoush continues with West Australian newspaper. Australian Broadcasting Corp
WAN shareholders warned against Stokes board bid.Australian Broadcasting Corp
Rio Tinto Shares Fall After BHP Doesn't Raise Offer. Bloomberg
Golden West Shares Gain After Portman Acquires Stake Bloomberg.
Sinosteel Wins Control of Midwest, May Seek Rival Ore Producer.
Bloomberg
Bloomberg
Bloomberg
Bloomberg
Bloomberg
Bloomberg
Business Day
Forbes
Forbes
Forbes
International Herald Tribune
International Herald Tribune
Herald Sun
New Zealand Herald
Peoples Daily
Sydney Morning Herald
The Age
The Age
The Age
The Australian
The Australian —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zip1010 (talk • contribs) 00:17, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While i don't think notability is an issue, I have previously commented that incidental mentions of an analyst report on another company do not themselves demonstrate notability of either the analyst or his or her company. |► ϋrбanяeneωaℓ • TALK ◄| 22:58, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with everything above except that I do think notability of BBY is an issue. the vast majority of these links are just mentions of BBY commenting on something and would not be able to be incorporated into the article. There is a complete lack of sources commenting on BBY. LibStar (talk) 04:56, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on BBY Ltd. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20091020223133/http://www.stockbrokersfoundation.org.au:80/award_previous.htm to http://www.stockbrokersfoundation.org.au/award_previous.htm#2008

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:40, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]