Talk:寶盛證券

出自維基百科,自由嘅百科全書
Jump to navigation Jump to search

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

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

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)


"...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:

  1. 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

  1. http://forum.cyberctm.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=109055
  2. http://www.dolc.de/forum/viewthread.php?tid=566835
  3. http://www.wretch.cc/blog/TinoChang&article_id=9226133
    Kelvinyiu 2008年1月7號 (一) 08:06 (UTC)
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)

Independent sources outside HK or mainland:

  1. http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Is_Boom_Securities_HK_Limited_reliable
  2. http://www.internetnews.com/bus-news/article.php/108731
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)

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 | | 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)
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 | | 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)

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

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)