Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Megaworld Corporation

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 keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:39, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Megaworld Corporation

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

The only external references concern a spat with Donald Trump over a name. Hardly notability. Fails WP:GNG. Hariboneagle927 notes in the edit history "Lack of credible references does not mean the company isn't notable" - well, yes it does. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 11:11, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 11:15, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 11:15, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. One of the biggest real estate companies in the Philippines. Did the nominator even bother to google and check articles that link to it WP:BEFORE nominating this article? It needs improvement and update though, particularly its recent developments in Resorts World Manila, the country's first integrated casino resort, Eastwood City, pioneer in Philippine BPO centers, other developments in Bonifacio Global City, Clark Freeport Zone, Mactan and Iloilo Business Park.--RioHondo (talk) 15:06, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep likely as "Megaworld Corporation Philippines" found several links at Books, News, browser and Highbeam. Pinging Hell in a Bucket, Hariboneagle927 and author TheCoffee. SwisterTwister talk 17:21, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 17:24, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, likely a large amount of coverage is in Tagalog. I think a stub is appropriate to keep as it is not overly spammy. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 20:54, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep by lack of "credible references", I meant the lack of in-line third-party citation at that particular moment of time (and apparently still true). Also in the same edit summary, I mentioned that the company is listed in the country's primary stock market, the Philippine Stock Exchange. Receive coverage on national newspapers such as The Philippine Star, Manila Standard, and Inquirer (sources not primarily discussing the projects of the company). At least notable in the national level.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 12:32, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Listed on the Philippine Stock Exchange, and both it and its many, many infrastructure projects have been covered in the media. @Velella:, perhaps you would have been able to see more coverage if you searched for just "Megaworld" or "Megaworld Philippines". Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:45, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -There is an issue here which directly relates to notability as defined in Wikipedia. It is easy to find references to the buildings constructed and equally easy to find references that 'mention' Megaworld, but finding references that convey notability on the company is a very different thing. Being listed on a stock exchange does not convey automatic notability. I looked but could't see notability, hence the nomination. So far nobody else seems to have found substantive and robust source. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 13:43, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I thought it's a given that a builder or developer of some of the country's biggest megaprojects for which we have wikiarticles on is also notable. But this company's notability from the president of the Philippines himself: 1.--RioHondo (talk) 14:47, 21 October 2015 (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.