Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kinfra Apparel Park (2nd nomination)

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. Tone 10:02, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kinfra Apparel Park[edit]

[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)

Non-noteworthy company. Entirely unreferenced. Does not appear to meet criteria. Adam Black GB (talk) 06:59, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Adam Black GB (talk) 06:59, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:02, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: The present article text is often promotional in tone, boasting of infrastructure links but omitting reported local concerns about water (Times of India, 2017), and without mentioning controversy about appointments (Indian Express, 2016). However article balance is a matter for clean-up rather than AfD. In the previous AfD, Phil Bridger identified two further news sources (still accessible) plus a book study describing the project's development (in "Selling to India's Consumer Market", Quorum Books, 1997). A case study does not in itself confer notability, and I note the WP:NBUILD comments, but while I would like to see much more solid sourcing for the article content and do not want to overplay the sporadic coverage which I have identified, I think there is enough overall coverage for notability. AllyD (talk) 08:48, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd argue that "... commercial developments, may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability." (from WP:NBUILD) means that a couple of sources (or 5, by my count at the moment) is insufficient to establish notability. Also, of the two online articles you've highlighted, the first names Kinfra almost as an aside in the last paragraph only and the second is very similar. I wouldn't class either articles, really, as "coverage" of Kinfra Apparel Park. There's a textiles factory in my hometown which has existed since the late 19th century. It certainly meets the historic criteria, being the only remnant of the town centre's industrial heritage, it's economically important as a major employer in the area, it is of architectural importance being one of few examples of Victorian architecture in town, and has received significant coverage from articles in the local and national papers to repeated mentions in books about the town and its history - I could probably dig up 40 reliable sources for an article. I wouldn't create one, though, because (much like this article, in my mind) those are all flimsy and tenuous justifications for something that just isn't noteworthy. Adam Black GB (talk) 18:19, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: As evident from available links, this is not a private company but a government establishment to bring in several apparel companies under one roof. The article has got valid citations and do not deserve to be deleted. Rather, the article could be expanded. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.90.36.50 (talk) 04:09, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -Nahal^(T) 18:40, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:39, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I came here as this AfD is listed under company/organization deletions, but this appears to be a business park and not a company. But then I notice that the "homepage" links to the KINFRA International Apparel Parks Ltd website. Hmmm ... on the basis that this topic falls under WP:NCORP, not a single reference meets the criteria for establishing notability. The Book Reference relies entirely on information provided by connected sources and therefore is not Independent Content and fails WP:ORGIND. The references in Financial Express and The Hindu Business Line are based on announcements and rely entirely on quotations/information provided by the company, also failing WP:ORGIND. If we look at this topic as a place, it fails WP:NBUILDING for the same reasons - there are no references that contain Independent Content, all of the content has been provided by the company or sources connected with the company. That's marketing and promotion folks! Other articles are mere mentions-in-passing such as reporting on water quality or appointments, these are neither significant nor in-depth. For this park to meet the criteria for notability, then there should exist references written by third-parties containing original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. I can't find any. Topic fails GNG/NCORP/NBUILDING. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:33, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV by every means. Needs more citations and rewrite Catorce2016 (talk) 10:52, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Few mentions in passing, nothing that raises between rewritten press releases or routine events coverage. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:26, 8 January 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.