Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alembic Group

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. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🎉 _{(HAPPY 2022)} 16:00, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alembic Group

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:ORG Juggyevil (talk) 12:05, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Juggyevil (talk) 12:05, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Juggyevil (talk) 12:05, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Juggyevil (talk) 12:05, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Juggyevil (talk) 12:05, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In the article there appear to be several seemingly-reputable sources that give significant coverage to the group. And it's diversified from the Pharmaceutical division, so there's some argument against merge. It's a 100-year-old company, WP:LISTED on both India's National Stock Exchange and the Bombay Stock Exchange, with over 300,000 employees in the group, has streets named after it. WP:THREE could perhaps be Financial Times, India Times and Divya Bhaskar (here via Google Translate). Chumpih. (talk) 22:36, 14 December 2021 (UTC) + 2021-12-27 08:50[reply]
Comment: Most of the sources cited are not reliable or just don't establish notability for their own page in the articlespace. Forbes India, TOI, and Business-Standard are good sources but more reliable sources would be better. Multi7001 (talk) 03:15, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Would Forbes India, TOI, and Business-Standard not be a satisfactory WP:THREE? Chumpih. (talk) 05:16, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chumpih., the page you linked is an essay of a user talk page and not of the official Wiki guidelines. But I do understand that three may be sufficient for some, however, it depends on the quality of the sources. For example, TOI is a questionable source in terms of reliability, so an extra one may be more suitable. The Forbes and Business-Standard written by staff writers are good sources though, since those types of articles also appear in print. Wiki is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Multi7001 (talk) 23:03, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Multi7001. From here you can see that WP:THREE is not exactly an obscure standard, but you're absolutely right about the other points. Is there superior threshold or mechanism you can cite or recommend?

And re. Times of India, the consensus is that it's at its worst when pro-government bias takes over. In this case of reporting on a business group, why would you think that ToI's bias or unreliability would apply? Chumpih. (talk) 23:39, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The reference about TOI was just a broad example. More reliable sources would be better in this case, in my opinion. Multi7001 (talk) 00:04, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, that's a reasonable stance. Chumpih. (talk) 00:56, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and it is probably worth bearing in mind the difference between WP:NOTE and WP:NOTEWORTHY. For sure, a bigger number of more reliable sources is better, but here in AfD it seems that we deal with what we're handed. The citations needed to support statements within an article (per WP:PRIMARY and so on.) may not all be of the quality required to satisfy WP:NOTE. (WP:MEDRS etc. notwithstanding.) So I suspect we can tolerate a number of insignificant or less-reliable sources providing there are sufficient good ones to satisfy WP:GNG.

Genuinely, is there a better threshold than WP:THREE? Chumpih. (talk) 00:14, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep as per WP:LISTED. Better copyediting required on urgent basis or else it will soon head for WP:TNT. -Hatchens (talk) 18:42, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:46, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete [1] It's not independent news with missing author name. [2] This is the self published. [3] there is no analysis and news is given by PR agency with comments of spokesperson of the company. [4] It is just a profile link. [5] TOI is not considered much reliable also it is based on announmenet. [6] Again a directory link. [7] unreliable profile source. [8] clear promo, self published news. [9] not reliable again and based on announment with no analysis. Even the content is pure junk. Behind the moors (talk) 09:31, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Behind the moors: would [10] be acceptable as a source? It's from the No.1 newspaper in India, apparently. If it is acceptable, perhaps find a few more can be found. It would appear that 'Business-standard' is permissible. Given that, is [11] significant and reliable, etc.? Frankly, there's a big likelihood that there's some WP:GNG sources out there because it's WP:LISTED. Chumpih. (talk) 18:57, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sources you shared are not in-depth or independent about the company it is about the event. We need independent sources which is talking about company and analysising it, not an event. Behind the moors (talk) 12:33, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Behind the moors: According to WP:GNG: Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. So when you say We need independent sources which is talking about company and analysising it, not an event, who are we and what is the documented requirement to be satisfied? And re. independence, the two sources are national newspapers; they're neither advertising, press releases autobiography nor the company's own website. Chumpih. (talk) 07:45, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please refer WP:ORG for organisation not WP:GNG. Just having a coverage in reliable/national paper doesn't mean they are independent. Read them, there is no analysis of journalist of them, only the comments of spokesperson. Behind the moors (talk) 12:12, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Both guidelines were read. And upon reading these, it would be clear to see that "[ WP:ORG ], generally, follow the general notability guidelines". The articles are independent of Alembic, indeed one is positively anti-Alembic, so which "spokesperson" are you referring to? The coverage is significant per definition. Where is this requirement for "analysis of journalist" coming from ? For the avoidance of doubt, these are not rhetorical questions. And once again, Alembic Group is WP:LISTED and over 100 years old, so it would be almost certain to be notable. Here's the Financial Times. Chumpih. (talk) 12:46, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 00:53, 29 December 2021 (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.