Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ameri Holdings

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. Kurykh (talk) 00:48, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Ameri Holdings

Ameri Holdings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

no evidence for notability .first ref is a listing, second a brief press release, 3rd a one sentence notice. DGG ( talk ) 05:51, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

I was creating the page since a friend who works there asked me to. It is not a paid editing. The links seemed convincing to me and I know the company to be a reputed one. I do not have the details right now but they have possibly won a number of awards as well. I was creating the article in draft space and was following protocols but some new account abruptly moved it into mainspace without proper discussion. In case it is not found to be notable could you please move it back to draft space? I do not wish the work to be unnecessarily lost. In the meantime I can try to find out if they are actually a notable organisation. I had known it to be a reputable and credible firm. Anasuya.D (talk) 07:47, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

I found this article and this. Ameri Holdings is also known as Ameri100. Anasuya.D (talk) 07:56, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 08:49, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

• Delete: It is unclear why the employee who asked for the article or the WP:SPA who moved the article into mainspace thought this firm to be of encyclopaedic notability. Whether a company is "reputable and credible" is not relevant here, and the article content indicates nothing more than a SAP consultancy going about its business. Nor are my searches finding anything better than routine announcements. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 08:49, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
• SNOW Delete as clear advertising alone and the history confirms it. SwisterTwister talk 02:36, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

*Keep: I had been unaware of the advertising nature of the previous articles that had been written and deleted. The present one that I was writing is by no means of advertising nature. this source is an independent publication showing that the company ranks 182 in 2016 Technology Fast 500 Ranking of North America. I admit that I too cannot find much written (other than routine press releases) about the company and the present material can make up no more than a stub. I will try to look up more sources. If the article is kept I can assure that I would monitor it so that it does not turn into a promotional article. Anasuya.D (talk) 06:28, 30 January 2017 (UTC) I withdraw my stand. Anasuya.D (talk) 11:10, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

I approve the withdrawal of my vote. Diptanshu^Talk 11:21, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

*Keep: Check page 28 of CIO Review magazine. There is an article on Ameri100. It seems to be from an independent source. Besides Giri Devanur, CEO and president of Ameri100 has been a finalist for best entrepreneur of the year and that was because of the promising work he did for this company (this link does not seem to be a PR release to me). I think that these parameters can establish the notability of the organization. However, the article should be carefully patrolled to ensure that it does not turn into a promotional one as the previous attempts had tried to make. Diptanshu^Talk 09:23, 30 January 2017 (UTC) We withdraw our support. On behalf of me and my husband. Anasuya.D (talk) 11:06, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

I validate the change in stand. Diptanshu^Talk 11:21, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

The CIO-Review fails as it is not an *independent* source since that entire section relies on quotes from the company or their CEO. The fact that their CEO has been a finalist for best entrepeneur of the year might be something if the CEO were to get an article, but notability is not inherited by the company. The NJBiz article *is* a PR news release. It uses the exact same wording as this PR release on the PRNewsWire site. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 15:55, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining. Diptanshu^Talk 18:46, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

:::However, I would like to differ from you in relation to your view regarding the entrepreneurship award prospect for the CEO. Although the article is not on the CEO, the CEO was actually being credited for his entrepreneurial effort namely Ameri100. So, in this case the two are to be considered interchangeably - this is what I feel. You could also refer to this and this source. Diptanshu^Talk 18:56, 30 January 2017 (UTC) Reframed own stand after consideration of the viewpoints.-From me and my husband. Anasuya.D (talk) 11:06, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

I validate the change in stand. Diptanshu^Talk 11:21, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

But notability isn't inherited. The award was not "Company of the Year", it was "Entrepeneur of the Year" and the CEO was nominated. (Also note, it wasn't the executive team or the company as a whole, it was solely for the CEO). WP:NOTINHERITED states Inherited notability is the idea that something qualifies for an article merely because it was associated with some other, legitimately notable subjects. This is usually phrased as "____ is notable, because it is associated with Important Subject." The "Important Subject" in your example is the CEO and you appear to be saying that Ameri Holdings is notable because it is associated with Giri Devanur who was nominated got an award. That fails the test for notability. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 19:32, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

• Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:GNG. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 15:55, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
• Keep: Even though many of in depth coverage might be lacking, this company is definitely among the emerging companies with entrepreneurial credibilities. The ranking shows the same. The CEO's award is also due to his entrepreneurial efforts on behalf of this company. So, the company definitely inherits the credit. The CIO Reviews article seems independent. Quoting from the CEO does not make it promotional. FutuGo (talk) 06:24, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
• Keep: Emerging company. A lot of acquisitions (as evident from press releases). Possibly the only company working aggressively to consolidate the SAP Services companies (Try doing a Google Search on this topic). The present page does not seem to have an advertising tone. So, I suggest keeping the page. Zombalu (talk) 12:02, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Sock !votes above have been struck. Lepricavark (talk) 19:57, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

• Note to Closing Admin User:FutuGo has 3 edits and the very first edit was to place this article into main space. User:Zombalu created an account today (31st Jan) and spent less than 30 minutes editing but all of their edits at AfDs which is a surprising place for a first time editor to start. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 13:42, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

My response is located at: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Anasuya.D. That is not a sockpuppet account. Anasuya.D (talk) 18:32, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

• Delete, no indication of how the company is different from many others in the branch. Exactly because the company is emerging, it's prematurely to judge its impact. Brandmeister^talk 15:29, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
• Delete -- "CIO Review magazine" is not an independent source; the article mostly likely created for promotion alone. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:20, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

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.