Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crossinvest (Asia)

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 Delete. Apparent sock !votes ignored. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:35, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Crossinvest (Asia)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable company lacking non-trivial support. References are listings or trivial mentions. Nothing substantial about the company. Article borders on advertisement. reddogsix (talk) 19:00, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Different approach

Every effort must be respected. Giving the space for improvement is the essence of a "free" internet. Destruction is easy, but to create something is much more difficult. Various aspects should be supported, but to the point where it does not threaten the integrity of the other. Now let's see some arguments.

Fact

There are scores of incomplete STUB article of the same category and of lesser value that are still live and fine!

Evidence

My opinion

Keep Article Lvlada (talk) 13:42, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Nothing of the above supports why - according to Wikipedia guidelines - this article should be included. Wikipedia is not a "free" advertising site or a place to post non-notable companies. Because other stuff exists is not a reason to allow something that fails to meet Wikipedia criteria to survive review. Unfortunately your opinion does not match Wikipedia guidelines for inclusion. reddogsix (talk) 15:45, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- Notable means "worthy of being noted" or "attracting notice." Mr. Audergon, the President of Crossinvest Asia who is also co-founder and vice-president of the Association of Independent Asset Managers (Singapore) AIAM, has won the "Outstanding Young Private Bankers 2011" award by Private Banker International." The Wikipedia policies and its interpretations should apply the same to all articles without discrimination. Interpretation of Wikipedia guidelines is something which I warned from the start. Everything in life is marketing and presentation of yourself to others, as this knowledge representation of Wikipedia policies.Lvlada (talk) 23:01, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - From the same article... An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. All content must be verifiable. If no independent, third-party, reliable sources can be found on a topic, then Wikipedia should not have an article on it. Additionally, notability is not inherited. reddogsix (talk) 23:11, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I understand the effort to prevent the abuse of Wikipedia but looking the evidence, stub and time difference someone might get the wrong impression about the different uses of Wikipedia's policies. I agree if it's a rule for everyone and as such is applied at all times.Lvlada (talk) 23:58, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Although always to be desired, uniform application of Wiki rules and standards, or the lack thereof, is not an admissible argument in AfD discussions. Please read WP:OTHERSTUFF. Best regards -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:14, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is a nice, informative article. I really appreciate it and there is room for improvement also. This should not be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Riratul (talk • contribs) — Riratul (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment-please cite the Wikipedia guideline that supports the notability of the article. reddogsix (talk) 21:18, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reply " Just in case you did not pay attention, there were a notice at the top of the original article stating this: "This Singaporean corporation or company article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it." I found this information in the history of the article. It seems like you "intentionally" deleted it. In case you don't know what a stub article is, read carefully this Wikipedia page. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Stub This should solve this issue definitively. Thank you. Riratul

Indeed. I particularly found the following most helpful... "If a stub has little verifiable information, or if its subject has no apparent notability, it may be deleted or be merged into another relevant article." It is becoming increasingly clear that your defense of the article is untenable and without any basis in Wikipedia policy. On a side note, although it may not be your intention, some of your comments are coming across as snarky and condescending. Just saying... -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:18, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence provided, nor could I find, evidence that this organization meets WP:CORP or WP:GNG. What's out there is a bunch of references to this company regarding a single employee, none of which provides signficant coverage (that I could find) of the corporation. Editors who are unhappy with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines regarding notability and article retention are encouraged to take up those discussionsa the Village Pump and/or the talk page of the relevant policy, we are unlikely to gain consensus for a wholesale rewrite of Wikipedia policy in this localized discussion. --j⚛e decker ^talk 22:09, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability per WP:CORP Sources generally fail RS or are trivial. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:45, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article - It will be a good idea to ask the creator to provide further evidence of notability. Expansion is the very definition of a stub article. I would rather have this article kept and expanded. • Qasim900 (talk)
Delete - non-notable per WP:CORP, stubbiness has nothing to do with it, you can have a very good stub or a very bad long article. It is the content that is important.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 13:13, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination, rather than speedy G5. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Thesoundkillers. Ruby Murray 16:42, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.