Talk:Sara Vietnam
 | This article was nominated for deletion on 22 January 2009 (UTC). The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Speedy deletion[edit]
Blatant advertising and spam...nope...I wrote 100% of this article so far, and you'll have to take my word for it, it's just an article. Or rather, a stub article. --Mr Accountable (talk) 15:52, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
- Can you explain why you feel this company is notable, according to WP:N and WP:CORP? As the article is currently written, it does not appear to assert any notability from independent, reliable sources. Frank | talk 15:57, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
- From WP:CORP#Alternate criteria for specific types of organizations, "There has been considerable discussion over time whether publicly traded corporations, or at least publicly traded corporations listed on major stock exchanges such as the NYSE or NASDAQ, are inherently notable. Consensus has been that notability is not automatic in this case. However, sufficient independent sources usually exist for such companies that notability can be established using the primary criterion discussed above. Examples of such sources include independent press coverage, analyst reports, and profiles by companies such as Hoover's (a commercial source)....So, we have Hanoi Securities Trading Center, Alacrastore and Bloomberg links for Sara Vietnam in the External links section of the article. It should be sufficient. ... As this is a Vietnamese company, it might not have the same English-language profile on Google, that a company in the US or UK might have, which doesn't have anything to do with its notability per se. --Mr Accountable (talk) 16:09, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
- The problem is that the links merely confirm the existence of the company. Where is the notability? Frank | talk 16:20, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
- ? According to the quoted material from WP:CORP, the notability is there. --Mr Accountable (talk) 16:24, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
- I don't see where. It says consensus has been that notability is not automatic in this case. You have shown merely that the company exists; notability has not been established...or even asserted. Frank | talk 16:49, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
- Again, ?. As you said, it says consensus has been that notability is not automatic in this case. Continuing directly with the quote, it goes on next to say: However, sufficient independent sources usually exist for such companies that notability can be established using the primary criterion discussed above. Examples of such sources include independent press coverage, analyst reports, and profiles by companies such as Hoover's (a commercial source). .... Are you being sincere about this discussion? --Mr Accountable (talk) 16:53, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
- I'm looking for any example of independent press coverage, analyst reports, and profiles by companies such as Hoover's to be included in the article. None exist right now. The links that do exist merely state that the company exists. Also, please read the entirety of WP:CORP, especially the first paragraph and the section labeled Primary criteria, which explains why press releases and trivial mentions do not indicate notability.
- As to my sincerity, I would think the fact that the article hasn't yet been deleted is an excellent indication that I am sincerely working toward a valid determination. Furthermore, since I am now "involved" in this discussion, if the correct action is deletion, I'll leave it to someone else who is uninvolved and can make an independent determination. Frank | talk 17:03, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
- The independent sources in External links confirm the information already in the article. It's a stub article and there is not much more to add at to it this time due to the condition of overwhelming notability matched with a relative paucity of English-language content at Google search. And as far as sincerity and maintaining a good work environment, your statement about your sincerity isn't sincere at all, you've forked from sincerity to a threat of imminent deletion. Please, its just an article about a nice company, written in an unassuming manner. If one is thinking about one's involement in the discussion as a topic in the discussion itself, then one has got to have more important things to do than worry about this information technology industrial group. --Mr Accountable (talk) 17:16, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
- Again, ?. As you said, it says consensus has been that notability is not automatic in this case. Continuing directly with the quote, it goes on next to say: However, sufficient independent sources usually exist for such companies that notability can be established using the primary criterion discussed above. Examples of such sources include independent press coverage, analyst reports, and profiles by companies such as Hoover's (a commercial source). .... Are you being sincere about this discussion? --Mr Accountable (talk) 16:53, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
- I don't see where. It says consensus has been that notability is not automatic in this case. You have shown merely that the company exists; notability has not been established...or even asserted. Frank | talk 16:49, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
- ? According to the quoted material from WP:CORP, the notability is there. --Mr Accountable (talk) 16:24, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
- The problem is that the links merely confirm the existence of the company. Where is the notability? Frank | talk 16:20, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
- From WP:CORP#Alternate criteria for specific types of organizations, "There has been considerable discussion over time whether publicly traded corporations, or at least publicly traded corporations listed on major stock exchanges such as the NYSE or NASDAQ, are inherently notable. Consensus has been that notability is not automatic in this case. However, sufficient independent sources usually exist for such companies that notability can be established using the primary criterion discussed above. Examples of such sources include independent press coverage, analyst reports, and profiles by companies such as Hoover's (a commercial source)....So, we have Hanoi Securities Trading Center, Alacrastore and Bloomberg links for Sara Vietnam in the External links section of the article. It should be sufficient. ... As this is a Vietnamese company, it might not have the same English-language profile on Google, that a company in the US or UK might have, which doesn't have anything to do with its notability per se. --Mr Accountable (talk) 16:09, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
I've evaluated those sources and do not feel that they establish notability. The "threat of imminent deletion" you refer to actually began when the CSD tag was placed on the article, which I did not do. Finally, I would again suggest you read WP:CORP, which does not include "nice company" as a reason for inclusion in the project, nor does it allow articles written in an "unassuming manner" to remain when the subject is otherwise not notable - as appears to be the case here. I am going to decline to delete this article as a CSD and instead nominate it for deletion so community consensus can be developed. Frank | talk 17:28, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
- Company is notable, and current English-language searchable web content is not commensurate with its notability. Article is a stub. --Mr Accountable (talk) 17:36, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Viwiki? 58.187.114.238 (talk) 14:37, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Tone of the article[edit]
Sara Vietnam is a company that seems to have good relations with the government of Vietnam; the company site and some of the related links have a tone of beginner's English. Perhaps this contributes to a perceived spammy tone in the article. --Mr Accountable (talk) 17:19, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Listing[edit]
The issue of public listing needs clarification. By my understanding it is not Sara Vietnam (Sara Group) which is publicly traded, but its IT subsidiary Sara Joint Stock Co. [1] This issue needs clarification.Beagel (talk) 07:56, 24 January 2009 (UTC)