Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CJ Group

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. Editorial decisions should be discussed at the article's talk page. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:35, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CJ Group

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are closely related:

The articles fail to establish notability. No external links for it, and the text simply states it's a "large company", without anything else. DanielPharos (talk) 09:30, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Merging all the pages together into one article might save the entire lot, if decent sources can be found. --DanielPharos (talk) 09:35, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep all Although the article are poor in the status, I wish the nominator would do some pre-reasearch before the nomination for the whole sale deletion. The group is the 17th biggest chaebol (conglomerate) in South Korea and was part of Samsung Group until 1993[1] (삼성그룹에서 분리된 범삼성계 기업들도 활약 중이다. 1991년과 1993년 독립경영을 선언한 신세계그룹과 CJ그룹은 꾸준히 몸집을 불려 각각 재계순위 19위(12조원)와 17위(12조3000억원)에 올라있다.), and some of the listed companies rank number 1 in some specific field (movie). If the articles about a company that has 10 billion profit should be deleted, what else Wikipedia should have? --Caspian blue 14:27, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I must admit I didn't do any deep research (I can't read Korean, that's not helping), but if you have any sources, please link the articles to them and I'll shut up. It's just that there appear to be several dozens of these kinds of articles, none sourced in the two years that they exist.

Also, I wouldn't count "17th biggest conglomerate" as being an statement of notability.

I now realize I shouldn't have marked them for deletion. I should have marked them for merger or something. Sorry about that. --DanielPharos (talk) 14:53, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

3,260 for CJ group Korea. Plenty of English sources from Google news search.--Caspian blue 15:00, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You forgot to put quotes around the name; you're also picking up on other CJ-things. 204 for CJ Group. OK, still, I see I made a mistake doing this, at least this way. I can make a listing of all the articles that I would've marked, and pass that on to the Korea wikiproject. If they really are notable, they deserve to be properly sourced after 2 years of wiki-lifetime. --DanielPharos (talk) 15:22, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:31, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Caspian blue 14:47, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. —Caspian blue 14:47, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but merge. I gather these several separate articles are about different divisions of a single business conglomerate. The separate articles seem rather redundant, and several mention that they all sponsor some gaming team. I'll defer to experts and Korean readers as to which ought to be the head article. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:23, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly a notable corporation per [2]. Offliner (talk) 13:13, 5 August 2009 (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.