Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Synechron

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. And salt. Sandstein 09:20, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Synechron[edit]

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

This article has been deleted 6 times as non-notable or purely promotional and was PROD'd in June 2013 (PROD notice was removed with a statement that the company is notable). An earlier version of the article with promotional content was recreated at Synechron Technologies and I early closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Synechron Technologies as merge to here. There were no arguments for keeping that article. In addition, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Faisal Husain was closed in March 2013 as merge to this article. Clearly there are concerns about the notability of this company, and the sourcing does not in my opinion sufficiently demonstrate it. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:47, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think the concern is less RE notability, as it is the aggressive effort to add copyrighted spam to the article. While someone may point out to me that there is no "policy" to support it, it seems to me that our priority should be to prevent spam > keeping articles about barely notable organizations. Since the article has been deleted six times, is there a way to delete it so it can't be recreated? Can we dish out some blocks here? We need a longer-term solution that will prevent them from repeatedly re-creating the article with spammy promo. CorporateM (Talk) 20:15, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If it's deleted, it can then be "salted" (i.e., the title can be protected so that only an administrator can recreate an article at that title.) But I hope we can first reach a decision on whether it's notable. I don't think the coverage in reliable sources is sufficient, but the article has never had clear, inline referencing, so I may be wrong. And sometimes an article is repeatedly deleted and then a final time it is created in a much better form, so what the repeated deletions mostly indicate is that there is disagreement about whether the company is sufficiently notable. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:24, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only possible notability is the "Best Indian IT employer"'s placings. I might count it, if it were top, but it's never been higher than 5th. I agree about using promotionalism as an additional reason for deletion: AfD can consider not only notability but any policy-based reason for deletion, including the apparent impossibility of writing a non promotional article. I placed a prod on it, and yes, if it is deleted both it and the other potential titles can be protected against creation. DGG ( talk ) 04:35, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's a substantial profile story in the Houston Business Journal and a profile about the work culture in an Indian Newspaper, as well as some shorter stories like this one. This story on their opening of a new office in Pune was covered in the print issue of an Indian newspaper.

Also, when one of their employees was kidnapped, gang-raped and murdered on their way home, after using public transport because the company did not make the company vehicle available, the police alleged the company may be responsible. This was covered by Indian Express and their response and adjustment to corporate policies was covered by The Times of India. There's quite a few hits on this story in a Google News search.

I do think that if a regular disinterested editor had an interest in the topic, an article could be made. But in the rare event that happens, they could ask an admin to unlock it. CorporateM (Talk) 05:44, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know really. The stories that you present here are pretty run-of-the-mill in nature and the one of the kidnapped and murdered employee is not relevant to the company itself. The company doesn't inherit the notability of a crime done to one of its employees even if the crime itself was notable, which it wasn't. As you might remember ([1]), I've struggled with this article myself trying to make lemonade out of a mound of lemons. In the end, I think there's a lot of smoke here, but no fire. At least, not yet. (Consider this a delete. Neutral about salting.) -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 02:04, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt Subject fails WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. No independent secondary sources; whoever keeps re-creating this article has had seven chances to demonstrate notability. Miniapolis 15:27, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per the above. Tek022 | _Comments? 20:06, 12 July 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.