Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Action Group (conglomerate)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. Last comment is 15 days old, with no new comments since relisting. (non-admin closure) | Uncle Milty | talk | 17:46, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Action Group (conglomerate)[edit]
- Action Group (conglomerate) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG. Googling turns up nothing but since the company name is so generic searching is difficult. Msnicki (talk) 13:56, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:45, 27 August 2013 (UTC) Note: Please consider reading WP:INDAFD which includes some points about WikiProject India AFDs. Those may or may not be applicable here. Tito☸Dutta 16:00, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:45, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I am finding it difficult to find sources discusses the parent company, but the subdivisions such as Action Shoes do receive some company so it seems reasonable to preserve this article as the parent subject. Candleabracadabra (talk) 04:27, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability is not inherited. From WP:INHERITORG, "A corporation is not notable merely because it owns notable subsidiaries." Msnicki (talk) 06:36, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- So you agree that subsidiaries are notable? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 08:11, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability is not inherited. From WP:INHERITORG, "A corporation is not notable merely because it owns notable subsidiaries." Msnicki (talk) 06:36, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- No, I mean that even if its subsidiaries were notable, that would not be enough to make the parent notable. You say some of the subsidiaries are notable but I haven't seen the sources to support that. Msnicki (talk) 09:06, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- This article covers the parent corporation and the subsidiaries (those subject redirect to this article). So, the fact that subsidiaries such as Action Shoes are notable does in fact establish notability for this subject, one that includes them. Candleabracadabra (talk) 12:32, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- No, I mean that even if its subsidiaries were notable, that would not be enough to make the parent notable. You say some of the subsidiaries are notable but I haven't seen the sources to support that. Msnicki (talk) 09:06, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It doesn't work that way. The subject of the article is the Action Group and that is the topic that must be shown to be notable here. You are welcome to write articles about the subsidiaries you think are notable and see if they survive their own AfDs (to which, given the sources I've seen so far, I would likely nominate them immediately.) Msnicki (talk) 14:54, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Not necessarily. If all/major subsidiaries are shown to be notable, a common article for them can exist to avoid stubs spreading all around the wiki. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 15:44, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The subject of the article is Action Group and its subsidiaries. For example, Action Shoes redirects to the article. So the group of companies must be considered and they are notable. Candleabracadabra (talk) 16:07, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It doesn't work that way. The subject of the article is the Action Group and that is the topic that must be shown to be notable here. You are welcome to write articles about the subsidiaries you think are notable and see if they survive their own AfDs (to which, given the sources I've seen so far, I would likely nominate them immediately.) Msnicki (talk) 14:54, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Business group in various fields with notable products of Action Shoes (Ho ho ho school time, Action ka school time) and Microtek inverters. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 04:48, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The sources you added are just routine coverage of their press releases and not suitable to establish notability per WP:CORPDEPTH. Msnicki (talk) 06:33, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The Hindu is not theirs. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 15:44, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The sources you added are just routine coverage of their press releases and not suitable to establish notability per WP:CORPDEPTH. Msnicki (talk) 06:33, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —SpacemanSpiff 18:29, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.