Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dinclix GroundWorks

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. I've deleted the article under WP:G4 (Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion). The version under discussion here is almost word-for-word identical to the previously deleted version, with said deletion being endorsed at WP:DRV. I also note that three of the four people arguing to keep are WP:SPAs. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:19, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dinclix GroundWorks[edit]

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

Previously deleted in accordance with WP:CSD#A7 and WP:CSD#G11. While the promotional content is now gone in this re-creation, it still offers no credible claim of significance. I believe it would still qualify for A7 speedy deletion except for the fact that it gives the illusion of notability due to having references — but not a single one of those sources constitute significant coverage as required by WP:CORP. They are all directory listings, product web sites, company announcements, and such. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:26, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the company is a notable organization, I can't seem to find any product listed on the article, what you might be talking about are public researches. If you feel that the article lacks sources than please discuss it on the article's talk page. =Gary 03DGW (talk) 04:57, 5 November 2016 (UTC)— Gary 03DGW (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
I was referring to the cited sources in the article, not the article content. The sources are all junk and do not satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH or WP:SIGCOV. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:18, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep organisation involved with MP Govt and AKVN for its Hyperloop project. Already make an electic car in Indore. AbhishekIndore (talk) 05:50, 5 November 2016 (UTC) — AbhishekIndore (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep, perhaps the only R&D company from India, their research projects are very much important and notable indeed. - TheodoreIndiana (talk) 07:47, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Importance" is not an inclusion criterion here. Significant coverage is all that matters. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:18, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

An information technology company founded in 2014 is the only R&D company from India? Really? That sort of very strong statement better have a very strong citation to support it. DMacks (talk) 20:24, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As it stands, it's in WP:CSD#A7 grounds...doesn't even make a claim of "notability", neither by WP:CORP nor WP:GNG standards. I'd already speedied it as such, but now it's been recreated by the same editor and I guess here we are. Notability is not sufficiently met by inheritance from its projects or affiliated organizations even if they were notable themselves (and note that even this lesser idea does not seem to be met). DMacks (talk) 20:23, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed that it qualifies for A7, as I stated in the nomination. So far we have zero 'keep' votes making a policy-grounded argument. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:29, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I never wrote the article after you deleted. Please refrain from making such claims. --TheodoreIndiana (talk) 18:02, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @Graeme Bartlett: who declined a WP:UNDELETE request for this article after my previous deletion. DMacks (talk) 20:52, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
not worth keeping Usually I am quite lenient with undeletes. I won't bother trying to justify that, as only what we have now is relevant. In the current article there are still no references that show notability. All the references seem to have been written by the company. Are there any newspaper stories about this company? Just saying they are involved with the Hyperloop is not a claim of importance. What did they have to do with the Hyperloop, provide paper towels for the logo design office? Looking online there are lots of mentions of the company on free-to-use websites, so it looks as if Wikipedia is being used as a promotional tool only. There are no g-newspaper appearances of the company in English. Also consider deleting Dinclix GroundWorks Global which redirects here. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:54, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, this one's the only one I found was YS --TheodoreIndiana (talk) 04:05, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What about reference numbers 7, 8, 9, 10? =Gary 03DGW (talk) 06:46, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, let's look at them. None of them are independent sources as required:

7. "Research Projects". Self-published by the company. Not independent coverage.

8. "B.R.A.C.E.". GroundBlog. Blog post, written by the company. Not independent coverage.

9. "An overview of DGWHyperloop". Self-published by the company. Not independent coverage.

10. "Bringing Elon Musk's Hyperloop to India". Written by the company. Not independent coverage.

@Gary 03DGW: I suggest you have a look at WP:Golden Rule to get an overview of what is required for an article to be kept. The sources provided, and the sources that seem available, don't come anywhere near satisfying the requirements of WP:SIGCOV and WP:CORPDEPTH. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:21, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and the DRV listing is now unanimous with Endorse, none of this suggests any actual substance or how it can be expected especially considering how unconvincing everything in this article is, therefore there's nothing to keep at all. SwisterTwister talk 19:51, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:CORP by a country mile. Stifle (talk) 15:54, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. the article says, "currently executing their research on the following projects:...", which means they have not actually accomplished anything yet, and the nature of the references bears this out. DGG ( talk ) 17:20, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Question, Contacted Indian Institute of Technology, Indore and Institute of Engineering and Science IPS Academy by e-mail, both the institutions have confirmed the research projects. Whilst I am still unsure whether WP:OTRS could be used for the purpose of verification, what can be done in this case to verify the projects? -Bonaparte03 (talk) 17:55, 7 November 2016 (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.