Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Category:Fortune Global 500

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

The following discussion comes from Wikipedia:Categories for deletion. This is an archive of the discussion only; please do not edit this page. -Kbdank71 21:47, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Category:Fortune Global 500[edit]

Wikipedia:Categorization says that an article shouldn't belong to a category unless it is self-evident, belonging to some Fortune list isn't. Using a fortune list isn't NPOV for categorization. The category members have to be updated annually, which doesn't sound like a good idea for a Wikipedia category. Information like this is better suited in a list or in Wikisource. RustyCale 12:37, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I disagree that it isn't NPOV as it's a well known list based on an objective criteria, not a qualitative judgement. But I agree that it should be deleted as it cannot be relied upon that companies which cease to be in the Fortune 500 will be removed annually. Philip 13:28, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I agree with you that the Fortune list itself is NPOV, however I don't think using it for categorization on Wikipedia is. Why? Because there are other lists out there like Forbes or S&P that uses different calculations. Since everyone has got their own favorite list and it would be against the purpose of categorization to use every list out there I don't think it's neutral to pick one and ban all others. RustyCale 21:34, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
There are only 2 globally famous ones, and they are prepared on different bases. They would both make legitimate categories if it could be relied upon that they could be kept up to date. Anyway, I am agreeing that the category should be deleted, so it hardly matters. Philip 11:16, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Delete. We should categorize according to attributes that aren't subject to change. Category:Fortune Global 500 as of 2004 would be a more legitimate category since it isn't subject to change, but obviously lists are better for this kind of thing. Gdr 11:28, 2005 Jan 3 (UTC)

  • Delete. That type of material is better handled in a list. -Willmcw 22:06, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)