Talk:寶盛證券

呢間嘢有乜重要？？--HenryLi 2008年1月6號 (日) 16:15 (UTC)[回覆]

It's a medium-sized brokerage firm in HK. Kelvinyiu 2008年1月6號 (日) 16:18 (UTC)[回覆]

It's also the first brokerage firm to provide online trading platform in HK as early as 1998/1997. Kelvinyiu 2008年1月6號 (日) 16:19 (UTC)[回覆]

香港好多證券行，呢間有乜重要嘅地方？文中無提過首間做網上證券貿易，亦都無其他可靠證明佢係。--HenryLi 2008年1月6號 (日) 16:29 (UTC)[回覆]

Exactly. It's just similar to other brokerage firms such as Taifook, SHK, Emperor, Prudential, Chrisfund, etc... There are several tens of medium-to-large-sized brokerage firms in HK.Kelvinyiu 2008年1月7號 (一) 01:41 (UTC)[回覆]

如果無重要之處，咁我就提出刪除。--HenryLi 2008年1月7號 (一) 06:43 (UTC)[回覆]

Which criteria on http://zh-yue.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:%E5%8D%B3%E5%88%BB%E5%88%AA%E9%99%A4%E5%98%85%E6%A8%99%E6%BA%96#General_criteria is satisfied? If none, {delete} tag should be removed.

"文中無提過首間做網上證券貿易，亦都無其他可靠證明佢係。" Actually you could contribute by researching on and then adding relevent contents to wikipedia.

I suspect you can confirm this with SFC since it regulates brokerage firms and probably electronic trading platforms as well. Write them an email. I haven't done it yet.

General notability guideline on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability#General_notability_guideline satisfied.
covered widely as you can see on http://www.baidu.com/s?wd=%8C%9A%CA%A2%D7C%C8%AF&cl=3 where you can find a lot of 2-nd party or 3-rd party coverage. Kelvinyiu 2008年1月7號 (一) 07:18 (UTC)[回覆]

Article第七條，篇文資料同來源，顯示唔到公司嘅重要度。百度搵出來九成九都係公司目錄，少數私人討論，唔及格。你可以參考en:Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)。唔係多就計數，要有獨立於公司之外嘅來源，來源要可靠，重要有深度，文內來源唔係提下個名就計。公司呢方面係嚴格，以防變相同賣告白。好明顯現有文章嘅來源，係不足證明其重要度。既然有爭議，暫緩刪除，多啲人來討論，咁快你啲改到達到標準，唔係有機會畀人剷走。--HenryLi 2008年1月7號 (一) 07:39 (UTC)[回覆]

"...If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability..." from en:Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies).

Now the following are independent sources available:

http://www.shjubao.cn/epublish/gb/paper148/20010306/class014800011/hwz329692.htm

(dependent with the previous) http://www.gtjajs.com.cn/various/VariousArticle.asp?articleID=84726

Also, I vaguely remember that according to some guildline/policy of Wikipedia, personally not heard of sthg is not a reason for deletion of an article.Kelvinyiu 2008年1月7號 (一) 08:06 (UTC)[回覆]

Independent sources outside HK or mainland:

要搞清楚，呢度並唔係話有無人聽過，而係篇文未達到維基百科要求。

除咗最尾一則視為可靠，其餘均為私人討論區或個人網誌，維基並唔認為係可靠來源。公司要求係高啲㗎，唔係就變成賣告白，所以先至要求篇文，快啲做到合維基基本要求。

--HenryLi 2008年1月7號 (一) 08:48 (UTC)[回覆]

How the first two in simplified chinese? They are from 新华社.

They are secondary sources refering to the same primary source -- 新华社.Kelvinyiu 2008年1月7號 (一) 09:04 (UTC)[回覆]

嗰項最大問題係，網址唔係新華社。--HenryLi 2008年1月7號 (一) 09:10 (UTC)[回覆]

that's why they are called secondary source

Also, these secondary sources are themselves reputable. for examaple, eastday's article is cited in en:Jay Chou and perhaps other articles as well.

Furthermore, you are correct that wikipedia requires sources to be "reliable". But to my understanding, it applies when you are trying to include some facts/polls/experiments etc. And to establish notability, private discussions are good enough. If you think that's not the case, please refer to a particular policy/guideline which supports your claim.Kelvinyiu 2008年1月7號 (一) 09:35 (UTC)[回覆]

其實核心問題係，文章顯示唔到間公司有幾重要。來源都顯示唔到間公司重要度。就好似一單交通意外，可以有大把新聞紙登出來，但當中司機/傷者個名可以人知，個司機/傷者可以好多討論區提到，傾完又傾，甚至傾足一個月。但係佢哋，喺百科全書嘅立場，一啲重要度都無。人哋嘅secondary source係講學者、新聞從業員、研究員同埋佢哋出嘅論文同書藉。並唔係討論區討論。況且，以家下篇文來睇，內容實在過份貧乏，話唔到畀人聽間公司乜咁重要。例如可唔可以寫出呢間公司對行業、社會、經濟、政治等等有乜影響呢？有乜大事做過？有無同犯刑法？又例如，佢係咪上市公司呢？HenryLi 2008年1月7號 (一) 10:31 (UTC)[回覆]

I also don't mention those forum as secondary source. I just said Eastday is the secondary source quoting 新華社.Kelvinyiu 2008年1月7號 (一) 10:36 (UTC)[回覆]

Please also note that this is a 楔位文章. You can help expand it.

點解首間網上證券交易商都唔重要???202.40.139.171 2008年1月8號 (二) 06:23 (UTC)[回覆]

老友，請問聲: 「寶盛證券係喺亞太地區推出首個網上證券買賣嘅證券行。」有無獨立報導? 唔該加埋。* -- :-) Hillgentleman | 書 | 二零零八年一月八號（星期二）格林尼治 07點06分52秒。

I think it could be checked out from newspaper collected in central public library. Alternatively, if you just want a verification, an email could be sent to SFC at enquiry@sfc.hk to ask if the info is true.Kelvinyiu 2008年1月8號 (二) 15:07 (UTC)[回覆]

And i think the most important point is that among 200+ brokerage firms, this one is relatively well known!

維基百科資料要有切實根據，以免造新聞同埋循環參攷。* -- :-) Hillgentleman | 書 | 二零零八年一月九號（星期三）格林尼治 03點02分34秒。

That's right :-D Kelvinyiu 2008年1月9號 (三) 03:13 (UTC)[回覆]

en:Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies).Kelvinyiu 2008年1月9號 (三) 03:29 (UTC)[回覆]

Although I don't think that whether it launches the first online trading platform is determinant of whether BOOM should be included here (since the most important concern is notability), I have sent an email to SFC to verify. Kelvinyiu 2008年1月9號 (三) 10:37 (UTC)[回覆]