Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Udaipur Chamber of Commerce and Industry

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 as copyright violation, numerous times over, by Apoorvmehta9 (talk · contribs) of copyrighted (″Copyright © 2012–2013 Udaipur Chamber of Commerce & Industry All rights reserved″) non-free text. I checked the UCCI's WWW site with the Wayback Machine, and the text was already there in 2014. All of the way back to the first edit this was a copyright violation; all of the text was someone else's.

Xe instigated one Hell of a mess doing it, too, with the copyright violations spread across the edit histories of two pages, UCCI and Udaipur Chamber of Commerce and Industry, and the consequences of bogus copy-and-paste ″moves″ of the original disambiguation article, after the original had been simply overwritten with this, meaning that the edit history of the work on the disambiguation by other people was spread across UCCI (disambiguation) and Udaipur Chamber of Commerce and Industry, with ironically none of it in the edit history of UCCI where the disambiguation was at the time of AFD closure.

I have done a somewhat complex dance to sort this all out, with a history merger to get a single edit history back. The only edit history to retain is that of the disambiguation, which I have restored to UCCI where it originally was.

Some of the people who put in and took out in redirects and stuff and argued in edit summaries will find those edits deleted; I did not consider them worth restoring.

Uncle G (talk) 18:16, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Udaipur Chamber of Commerce and Industry[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 notable organization (not owned by government, but authorized by government), lacks RS, it has become a major place for advertising local residents. Meeanaya (talk) 11:35, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Meeanaya (talk) 11:35, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 12:22, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:50, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:The name itself suggests notability to me. But all the concerns of the nom are legitimate. I hope someone finds a few RS before this is closed so we can at least keep a stub, by which I mean I expect it to be a stub if it survives, we need to cut all the BS either way. I got a few hits on google books and local news but have no perspective to judge their acceptability. It seems User:Apoorvmehta9 changed the content toward the current version and some other user moved it, while the original version was a disambiguation page. It seems of little value to notify User:Aymatth2 who created the original disambiguation page about this. Is this like a rule? Usedtobecool ^✉️ ✨ 17:23, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This article is unsourced and reads like an advertisement for the organization, probably much of it copy-and-paste, so a copyright violation. But the subject is I think notable, as indicated by a Google Books search, so technically should be left to be fixed rather than deleted. Deleting it and letting someone start a new version based on independent sources would also be an option, perhaps simpler. Aymatth2 (talk) 23:14, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Google news gives only 8 results, which are local webblog and not reliable RS. Looking at the book search, all of them only mentions and does not seems to be covering them in detail, I am not sure what is the criteria, but it seems to be failing notability criteria. 14.98.207.62 (talk) 10:57, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep: As other editors have commented, notability is inherent in the nature of the org and is validated by a visit to its website. Fully agree that the article is being used for advertising and promotion but the correct remedy is to edit or attach fix tags, not deletion.Deccantrap (talk) 19:44, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no rule saying all chambers of commerce are inherently notable, or all organizations with nice websites. Notability comes from being noted and discussed in some depth by reliable independent sources. Aymatth2 (talk) 11:21, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is nothing here worth saving, and some of the article, possibly all of it, is a copyright violation. Compare the six points in Udaipur Chamber of Commerce and Industry#Objectives to the almost identical six points in https://ucciudaipur.com/vision-and-mission/ . Language in the article like "We are proud to claim that the VTC has been able to provide 100% placement support to its graduates. Skill development is a specific area where we seek partnership and support." is surely copied directly from a publicity blurb. After deletion an editor may start a new article on this subject based on reliable independent sources, if that is possible. Aymatth2 (talk) 11:21, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~WP:CV is not a criteria for deletion.~~I realized WP:CV can indeed be a criterion for deletion under WP:DEL-REASON.Deccantrap (talk) 17:00, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Assuming the whole article consists of copies or close paraphrases of copyright-protected material published by the subject of the article, as seems likely, all the content should be deleted and the revision history should be wiped out. The simplest way to do that is to delete the whole article, which is anyway just puff. That would not prevent an editor from starting a new version from a clean slate based on what reliable independent sources have to say about the subject. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:37, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Chilling (talk) 15:49, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I am convinced now, that, as likely as it is that the subject is inherently notable, there is no RS to base content on at this point, having not found it myself and it having not shown up in the past week. The article as it stands deserves TNT, since there is no RS to start over at this point with, deletion is best. This would also allay all concerns of possibilities of COPYVIO past and present, without wasting community resources on a useless article. Usedtobecool ^✉️ ✨ 17:29, 17 July 2019 (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.