Talk:ghost shell company

RFV discussion: May–October 2023

The following information has failed Wiktionary's verification process (permalink).

Failure to be verified means that insufficient eligible citations of this usage have been found, and the entry therefore does not meet Wiktionary inclusion criteria at the present time. We have archived here the disputed information, the verification discussion, and any documentation gathered so far, pending further evidence.
Do not re-add this information to the article without also submitting proof that it meets Wiktionary's criteria for inclusion.

---

ghost shell company

Has a delightfully specific (and encyclopedic) def, but google:"ghost shell company" -cognizant turns up very little. This, that and the other (talk) 05:38, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

I like your way of filtering out mirrors. It's perhaps worth noting that Wikipedia redirects ghost company to its shell corporation page, suggesting perhaps there's something to this, but that ghost company itself might be a sufficient term. In other words, a ghost company is a type of shell company. It may also be that they are synonyms, or very close. As of yet, though, the word ghost does not appear in the Wikipedia article. This news article also establishes that ghost companies are recognized outside the USA. Another relevant term perhaps is holding company, which seems to be used in a more positive sense. —Soap— 10:49, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

I can certain find sufficient cites for "ghost/shell company", but I interpret that to mean "ghost company" or "shell company" (as synonyms.) Kiwima (talk) 00:23, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

• RFV failed. Our top 3 quote-finders (and Wonderfool) can't find it. P. Sovjunk (talk) 20:24, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

  FWIW I have added an uncited, but IMHO citable, entry for ghost company which makes it to be not quite the same as shell company. It may be that all ghost companies are shell companies, but certainly not all shell companies are ghost companies. DCDuring (talk) 16:47, 1 October 2023 (UTC)