Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Udayapur Cement Industries 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 keep. Consensus to keep the article for now. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 09:17, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Udayapur Cement Industries Limited

[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 that doesn’t satisfy WP:ORG. A before I just conducted shows no evidence of notability as they are merely mentioned in unreliable sources without editorial oversight. Celestina007 (talk) 19:15, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 19:15, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 19:15, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 19:15, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 19:15, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 19:15, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I started the article because its a government own industry. Also i think delete is the wrong tag. The right tag should be notability or insufficient reference. Well, i will try to add few more references.nirmal (talk) 01:39, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Nirmaljoshi, no! Per WP:ORG the organization must possess in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources & no reliable sources can be found to substantiate nor prove the organization is notable even following a before I conducted.Celestina007 (talk) 01:52, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources should mean notablity. Anyway, added few more references to prove significance. nirmal (talk) 02:34, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No! Press releases and self published sources are generally not what we consider to be reliable. Celestina007 (talk) 02:55, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Right. But the soruces are not Press release but online newspaper coverage in this case.nirmal (talk) 03:03, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Enough with this back & forth go through WP:RS. Celestina007 (talk) nirmal (talk) 03:08, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also check before C. Consider whether the article could be improved rather than deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nirmaljoshi (talk • contribs) 03:10, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Our coverage of Nepal is pretty thin. International Journal of Scientific and Engineering Research looks a pretty good reference, and Global Cement clearly notices it. Rathfelder (talk) 13:16, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The current sourcing very likely does not meet NORG (I can't access (and so evaluate) the research paper, there is one almost-SIGCOV, the rest seem non-qualifying for notability). At the same time, there is no way this would not meet it when all the archives are sorted through. All I can offer at this time to justify my Keep is an inductive-ish argument for WP:NPOSSIBLE; it follows: From what I know of Nepal's economy, and similar government-owned industries in and around my own community, government owned industries of this size are basically a castle (except for being a literal castle or in Europe). They usually play at least a minor role in the country's history for a period of years to decades, its economy (Nepal's economy is really small and the government is very short on investment capital (as it spends relatively generously on social programs); at the very least, these organisations are widely discussed with respect to the government's economic policy). These often do generate a number of headlines (socialism/capitalism or free-market/protectionism debates or government/opposition tension, corruption/embezzlement, protests from affected locals, strikes, delays, and so on.) They have a very significant impact on the local economy (hundreds of thousands of people) and direct impact on the lives of thousands of people (often raising associated, often multiple, settlements, markets and transportation hubs). The ropeway and associated mines means it also directly impacts a number of other communities, not necessarily in the immediate vicinity.
;tldr I don't know this organisation personally (take the grain as per your taste) and the current sourcing likely falls short of NORG but there is no way this is not notable, so we should keep it as a very strong case of WP:NPOSSIBLE based on what's already there and give it time to develop, which is likely to happen more with a bluelink than a red one. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 16:38, 6 July 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.