Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KITCO India

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 delete. MelanieN (talk) 00:52, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

KITCO India

[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)

Company fails WP:GNG. Page fails WP:Advert. Survived first AFD thanks to a user named, oddly enough, after the company. Dorama285 (talk) 01:23, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: In the first AfD nobody appears to have paid any attention to the comment from that user. Nor is it "odd" that he was named after the company; part of the reason for the nomination was that "it has COI issues," and that user admitted that he was "from the company." Given that those issues were adequately dealt with then, with the consensus being (as PamD put it) that "this article [is] about a notable government body," the reason for renominating the article is unclear. Of course, the article is in poor shape, but that's not a notability issue; plenty of secondary sources exist (e.g., 1, 2, 3, 4), and in fact, the article once had a number of sources (see article as it appeared during the last AfD), but these were removed for some reason last year. --Usernameunique (talk) 02:32, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's not a government body, it's a private company. Btw, the content of the article seems to be directly lifted from sources without them being summarized or attributed for it. For instance, the first part is directly taken from here (unless they copied from Wikipedia, but it doesn't seem they did). So, the article should be deleted on copyright violation grounds alone if nothing else. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:40, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright infringement is possible, especially given the editor with a conflict of interest. But that line has been in the article since early 2011, whereas archive.org only has the site you pointed to as going back to 2017. At any rate, any infringement would be a reason to delete content from the article, but not the article itself. --Usernameunique (talk) 22:26, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the company isn't notable. Going over the sources provided by Usernameunique, the first and second articles are about company growth. Which isn't notable. The third article isn't in-depth coverage. As it is more about the CEO and only mentions the company in passing. Whereas, the forth is trivial coverage on a job search site. Which doesn't qualify either. As far as the other sources that where in the past version of the article, it's much of the same. Most of them are dead links and the few that aren't are just trivial coverage. Usernameunique really should have checked them before using them as a reason to keep the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adamant1 (talk • contribs) 09:54, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Adamant1, why are articles about a company's growth not notable? If anything, the fact that a news organization saw fit to write about a company's growth shows that the company is worth writing about—i.e., notable. And it takes a hefty stretch of the imagination to believe that an article titled "Calls for state takeover of Kitco gain momentum," is truly an article that "only mentions the company in passing"; indeed, the article is about the company's potential privatization, and the CEO—who isn't mentioned until the second paragraph—is only discussed in the context of his opposition to the idea. As far as the sources in the old version go, they were considered sufficient to establish notability the last time this was nominated for deletion, so why not now? The fact that the links are now dead does not change that—and had you looked, you would have seen that every single one is viewable on archive.org. Speaking of doing one's due diligence, next time you have useful advice about what I should or should not have done, please feel free to ping me. --Usernameunique (talk) 22:26, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Usenameunique, I wasnt trying to critize your actions. So I apologize if it came off that way. On the growth thing, WP:NCORP says routine coverage includes "of quarterly or annual financial results and earning forecasts." I try to stick to that for good reasons. Re copyright, "cleaning up" an article of copyrighted stuff by deleting large amounts of content usually causes the sources being deleted also. Most people arent going to take the time to rewrite things to spare the sourcing. Nor should they have to IMO. On the past RfD sources thing, are we not basing this RfD on our evaluations of the current conditions are is the purpose just to parrot back what a few people in 2011 said about it? Im not saying past states of things dont matter, but conditions change and I think the onus is on the original nominator to make sure the new AfD is appropriate. I just look at the state of current sourcing. Wading into other philosophical things like "dead links are still technically the existence of sources" is out of my peer view. Although, I am hardline about not creating or maintain a bunch of stub articles. Especially when it comes to companies. Sources only matter as providing content for an article IMO. Which dead links dont do. Articles arent bibliographies. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:35, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Dorama285 (talk) 01:23, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Dorama285 (talk) 01:23, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Dorama285 (talk) 01:23, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:36, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:58, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, fails GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:57, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Original AFD was based (incorrectly) on COI issues. The real problem with this article is lack of notability. No in-depth coverage by independent, reliable sources. Does not meet minimum threshold for notability. Glendoremus (talk) 23:41, 31 March 2020 (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.