Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sateri
It worries this question of using the clause re: analyst reports to establish notability in . It is essentially stating that every public traded company will have an article on Wikipedia, even companies which are inherently not notable, e.g. mom an pop companies that may have some kind of product that they sell, perhaps they have inherited it from their parents, and they offers shares in the companies, in which there is reams of examples of that type. Another example would be startup that has developed a product, offering shares again, might only 10 people in the company, but an exciting, in your face, or trending, or new technology product, but all non notable by any WP notability criteria. In the UK there is 714000 people working in the UK banking industry, that is the highest level its been since 2007. Essentially what has been said here, is that roughly 1.07% of the UK population or 2.23% of the UK working population is deciding via analyst reports (the percentage is much smaller as only certain institutions produce them) what public traded organisation is notable, when all other policy criteria are taken into effect, like , , , for an example UK company. We need to have look at this. As an aside Cunard ref's only deal with the company finances, not the company as a whole. They also don't satisfy  as the banks have a ''Vested Interest'' in producing these reports for their customers
— User:scope_creep, 19:09, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
Stance: comment
Cited policy: WP:RS||WP:NCORP||WP:ORGIND||WP:ORGCRIT||WP:ORGIND (Wikipedia:Reliable sources)