charles.r.matthews(a)ntlworld.com wrote:
"George Herbert" wrote
There are
around 6,000 NYSE and NASDAQ listed US companies; is en-wikipedia
WP:CORP as it stands still the right filter, or should it be somewhat
loosened up? Would roughly 6k companies be inappropriate in 1.5
million total articles? Is mere listing on a major stock exchange
enough notability?
Good question.
I wouldn't say we need every NASDAQ listing.
If the only information we have about them is the NASDAQ listing we have
a relatively uninformative stub. In most cases a little digging can
probably find more information in the legally required filings for
public corporations. If the supporters of a company aren't willing to
do that little bit of research even the hardest core inclusionists can't
help them.
It is a bit odd for companies not to be able to qualify
at all by capital value. Of course if there really were _no_ sources, for a secretive
private corporation, the article could reduce to 'secretive private corporation'.
Private corporations are not listed on NASDAQ, and you cannot buy their
shares on the open market.
People who come to Wikipedia in a search for
information on what equities to buy - what can one say? Cheapskates, and foolish
investors, almost by definition.
Not at all, but for the fact that the amount of information that we now
have is very limited. If it's going to be their only source of
information you're right on the same level as using Wikipedia references
on term papers. Having good NPOV information may not help a person to
decide what equities to buy, but it can certainly influence him in
deciding which equities _not_ to buy.
Such information on companies is one of our most seriously
underdeveloped areas of knowledge.
Ec