Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dhani (company)

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. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 _{(ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 14:20, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dhani (company)[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)

Company page doesn’t reach WP:NCORP policy of Wikipedia. There are many links. But, they all look marketing posts. Laptopinmyhands (talk) 14:22, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Laptopinmyhands (talk) 14:22, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Business, Internet, and India. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:37, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: as per WP:LISTED and WP:THREE. Publicly-traded corporations listed on major stock exchanges are notable if sources include independent analyst reports - here, here, and here (in page 63). RPSkokie (talk) 08:37, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Noting for now that they are credit reports, not independent analyst reports. In India too, companies themselves choose and pay credit rating agencies; thus have independence issues. Pertinently, one of the CRAs you link, Brickwork Ratings, is being investigated by the regulator for lack of independence. Hemantha (talk) 12:47, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Hemantha That’s a valid point, but in that sense, then every other CRA lacks independence, because the other two CRAs, which are linked as references are also investigated by the same regulator in the past for multiple reasons CARE Ratings and Credit Suisse. In general, my understanding is credit reports can be treated as independent analyst reports if the agency which is preparing them is independent of the listed company and names of analysts and their affiliations are clearly mentioned in the reports. Again, it all depends on how we look at these listed companies, which may vary from country to country and regulators to regulators. RPSkokie (talk) 15:10, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please show me the language you have used here ‘’Publicly-traded corporations listed on major stock exchanges are notable if sources include independent analyst reports’’. I didn’t find this language in any policy page. None of the links here are discussing about what this company do and is just discussing their stocks and values. So, according to me, it is not following WP:NCORP. Laptopinmyhands (talk) 13:00, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NCORP and Laptopinmyhands listing on an exchange anywhere is not automatically a gift to have an article here. Bearian (talk) 21:07, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Passes WP:LISTED according to the three independent analyst reports I provided here. analysts report 1 written by independent authors, analysts report 2 written by independent authors (already used in the article), and analysts report 3 written by independent authors. Also, the following academic articles significantly cover the company - academic article 1, academic article 2. To further strengthen my support, attaching some other reliable citations (WP:RS) which qualify this article towards establishing notability. - Indian Express article by staff writers, The Hindu article by a staff writer, BloombergQuint article by a staff writer and CNBC article. Akevsharma (talk) 09:26, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We already talked about credit reports not being analyst reports. So those got nothing to do with notability. Any proof that these academic articles are written by independent authors? The findings are totally in favour of the company. Also note ‘convenience sample’ in methodology which implies it is not a representative sample and findings are not generalisable. Few academics writing about a company doesn’t mean company become notable. All media articles are about a single event fraud case. There are no proper articles that really explains what the company is and what it does. Also note, the person who created this article, Dhani is only second article. First is also suspected for WP:COI. Laptopinmyhands (talk) 15:46, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I believe Laptopinmyhands have not opened the links that I mentioned above. The reports that I have shared are the actual analyst's reports, not the credit reports and out of 3, only 1 has been used in the article as a reference. Regarding your view on academic articles, please refer WP:SCHOLARSHIP and WP:RS/AC. An article from an academic journal always has better acceptance because they are backed by an editorial board and the process such as peer-review, blind-peer review, etc. All we should care about is avoiding original research, especially about making blanket statements.

"The person who created this article, Dhani is only second article"? If WP:NPOV is violated, then we should take this information into account. As of now, no such violations have been observed. If anyone can point it by analyzing the edits of the creator of this article, then it will surely benefit this discussion.

Let us remove the ambiguity by following WP:SIRS and evaluating individual sources separately. Also, let's find whether they independently meet the four criteria below to determine if a source qualifies towards establishing notability. Akevsharma (talk) 01:16, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The summarization of the analysis is put in the following table:

Source	Link	Significant?	Independent?	Reliable?	Secondary?	Pass/Fail	Notes
Independent analyst report (not credit report)	Link	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	WP:LISTED. For disclaimer and disclosure, check page 77. This report is used as reference in the article and it significantly explains what the company is and what it does, check page 63.
Independent analyst report (not credit report)	Link	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	WP:LISTED. For disclaimer and disclosure, check page 11. This report is not used as reference in the article.
Independent analyst report (not credit report)	Link	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	WP:LISTED. Disclaimer and disclosure behind paywall. This report is not used as reference in the article.
Academic article	Link	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	WP:SCHOLARSHIP, Material such as research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses. This paper is not used as reference in the article.
Academic article	Link	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	WP:SCHOLARSHIP, Material such as research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses. This paper is used as reference in the article.
Academic article	Link	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	WP:SCHOLARSHIP, Material such as research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses. This reference is used as reference in the article via HeinOnline-Wikipedia Library. This paper is used as reference in the article.
Academic article	Link	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	WP:SCHOLARSHIP, Material such as research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses. This reference is used as reference in the article via HeinOnline-Wikipedia Library. This paper is used as reference in the article.
News article (The Hindu)	Link	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	WP:RS/WP:RSP/WP:THEHINDU, Event 1: PAN mishandling. This news article is used as reference in the article.
News article (The Financial Express (India))	Link	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	WP:RS/WP:RSP/WP:INDIANEXP, Event 2: Insider trading. This news article is used as reference in the article.
News article (The Times of India)	Link	N	Y	Y	Y	?	WP:RS/WP:RSP/WP:TOI, Event 3: Sexual harassment of women doctor. This news article is used as reference in the article.
Total qualifying sources						9	There are multiple qualifying sources that meet the notability requirements. Some are used in the article and some are not.

Akevsharma (talk) 01:39, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

will respond to remaining. But the scholarship essay says ‘reputed peer reviewed journals’. So to use this claim, please show how these journals are reputed. A long table without proper evidence is misleading, I feel. I am still not on board with these ‘analysts report’. Will let others chime in. Laptopinmyhands (talk) 02:50, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment of journals (used in above WP:SIRS table) for reputability and notability;

Journal Name	Links	Indexing	Reliable?	Secondary?	Used in the article	Pass/Fail	Notes
Turkish Online Journal of Qualitative Inquiry	Source Link	Scopus Link	Y	Y	Y	Y	Journal is notable as per WP:NJOURNALS.
Jus Corpus Law Journal	Source Link 1, Source Link 2	HeinOnline, Link	Y	Y	Y	Y	Journal is notable as a source because it is indexed with HeinOnline database which can be accessed at The Wikipedia Library. The Library allows active editors to access a wide range of collections of paywalled reliable sources for free!
Global Journal of Engineering Science and Researches	Source Link	Not indexed with known bibliographic database	Y	Y	N	N	Journal is not notable
Total qualifying sources						2	Out of 3 journals, 2 are notable enough to be used for referencing purposes

Akevsharma (talk) 15:55, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep sourcing is adequate to establish notability. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 05:57, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are sufficient sources that meet WP:NCORP criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:01, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

agreed on notability because of last table. What happens in this case? Can nomination be reverted? Laptopinmyhands (talk) 21:52, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per source table provided by Akevsharma. JoyStick101 (talk) 05:04, 9 March 2022 (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.