Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Godrej Properties Limited

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-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:19, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Godrej Properties Limited[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:COMPANY and WP:GNG - Jayanta Nath ^{(Talk|Contrb)} 09:14, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

merge with Godrej_Group. This article appears to be written like an advertisement. The company is quite notable. If someone can find more reliable sources then it should be kept. SmackoVector (talk) 11:37, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

strong keep As the article currently stands, it doesn't read like an advertisement, although it could do with rewriting and expansion. That being said, it's a highly notable company by any standards, and the nom would have discovered that had s/he spent ten seconds with Google. Mandalini (talk) 22:13, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments : Could you please explain why it is highly notable company by any standards. Please go through with the wiki policy as I mentioned that WP:COMPANY. There no depth coverage till now. - Jayanta Nath ^{(Talk|Contrb)} 19:54, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, ten seconds with Google brings up extended coverage in multiple major secondary sources. Here we have the Hindu; the Economic Times; CNBC; the Hindustan Times; the Economic Standard. Here's Business Today. According to Reuters, as of March 31, 2012, the company was developing 77 million square feet of real estate through projects in 12 cities across India. Bloomberg calls it the fourth-biggest developer in India. What, pray tell, makes you think it's *not* notable? Mandalini (talk) 01:45, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I thick you have to go through to WP:ORGDEPTH. All links said company's investment and product not about "Significant coverage" the company.- Jayanta Nath (Talk|Contrb) 17:29, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's simply not true. This and this are dedicated analyses of a recent capital raise on the part of the company, including quoted remarks by the company's managing director, about a new attempt to raise money, and this is a report on a regulator's activity with regard to the attempted raise. Both are dedicated articles about the company, as opposed to cursory mentions of something or other, like this. Here's another dedicated article about the company's activities. Mandalini (talk) 01:00, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Jayanta Nath. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 12:59, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —SpacemanSpiff 09:28, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —SpacemanSpiff 09:28, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:49, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:49, 23 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, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 01:31, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the coverage in reliable sources identified here by Mandalini. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:12, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have no questioned about reliable sources, All sources are reliable. I am concern about Significant coverage the company.- Jayanta Nath (Talk|Contrb) 06:28, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am confident that the full range of sources brought forth in this debate amount to significant coverage. This is not a small or medium sized company, and saying so shows a lack of familiarity with small business, which is my career. It is the fourth largest company of its type in India, with projects in 12 cities. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:39, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is the fourth largest company of its type in India any reference?? And by the way "fourth largest company" is not the criteria of inclusion.- Jayanta Nath (Talk|Contrb) 07:01, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You will find in the text above, provided by Mandalini, a link to a Bloomberg News article verifying this fact. If it was the fourth largest manufacturer in India of brass plates decorated with imitation gemstones, that would not be a credible claim to notability. But fourth largest real estate developer is a credible claim of notability with regards to a country with well over a billion people, and the extensive coverage in reliable, independent sources uncovered by Mandalini seals the deal, in my opinion. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:36, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Advert article. It's a fairly small to medium sized construction company, house builder. I don't see any notability. Supposed references are very poor. Fails WP:COMPANY certianly. scope_creep talk 17:20, 31 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, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 01:51, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep As the sources given my Mandalini plus its on top for "Best companies to work for 2013" under Real Estate by Economic Times. Shobhit Gosain ^Talk 17:30, 7 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.