Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Food Processing Equipments Company Pvt. Ltd.

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. No evidence has been produced during this discussion to show that the company itself is notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 14:07, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Food Processing Equipments Company Pvt. Ltd.[edit]

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

Seems to be an article on a non-notable company, created by a single-purpose account. Boleyn (talk) 10:01, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:40, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:40, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:41, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I think the references I added, all of which deal with a specific project in which the subject played a significant part, are probably just about enough to indicate notability, especially given the likely existence of non-English sources which I wouldn't know how to find. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 11:38, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:49, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The references found would be useful if supporting an article about the Ghazipur abattoir, but their coverage of this firm (Food Processing Equipments Company Pvt. Ltd.) is effectively passing mention as a contractor; a firm going about its business but not enough to meet WP:CORPDEPTH encyclopaedic criteria. AllyD (talk) 10:47, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 04:43, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete. zero notability as a business. - Altenmann >t 18:06, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename as Ghazipur slaughterhouse or something similar. Subject is notable but, as Arms & Hearts has pointed out, the contractor behind it doesn't appear to be the focus of the topic. Ibadibam (talk) 04:05, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not opposed to this but sort of worried about NPOV concerns? Like, if the article is on the company it could plausibly be expanded to cover other operations that weren't apparent failures, whereas an article on the slaughterhouse is more likely to remain as a reflection of the mostly negative coverage we currently have. A useful parallel might be an author or musician, where significant coverage of a novel or album would be enough to establish notability? That seems like a bit of a stretch but I can't think of any immediately obvious reason the same rough principle wouldn't apply in this case. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 06:34, 14 December 2013 (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.