Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mascot Metal Manufacturers

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 --JForget 23:03, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mascot Metal Manufacturers[edit]

This article is a contested speedy-delete, which is self-promotion for a non-notable company. jbmurray (talk • contribs) 10:45, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Mascotmayank (talk) 12:05, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The notablity of this company can be found out by the reference made in this page, this company is very popular in UK market, as if anyone in the UK have seen the products of this company in the DIY stores, this company is doing business for last 25 years and its products can be seen at focus, wickes stores etc. My intentions are not to promote any company but to make its contents usable for reference. However I would like to invite suggestions that what efforts should be done to make it look non-self promotion.--Mascotmayank (talk) 10:56, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I put the {{db-spam}} template up. For the third time, please read WP:NN. It doesn't need to "look non-self promotion", it needs to not be non-self promotion. Importance, familiarity and popularity are not notability. JohnnyMrNinja 11:03, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As the article stands it is an advert with apparent COI problems. The idea is not to "make it look non-self promotion" but, to actually make it a non-self promotion. The article is basically a brochure of the company, its products, achievements, etc. It is not "very popular in UK market, as if anyone in the UK have seen the products of this company in the DIY stores" because quite frankly just having a product in the store doesn't make something popular. Citations from reliable third party sources which show the company is notable (per the guidelines and policies) should to be included in the article. Jasynnash2 (talk) 11:04, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Citations from the third party sources such as BSI, Dun and Bradstreet and AQSR have been included.--Mascotmayank (talk) 11:21, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Confirming existence is not the same thing as confirming notability. Jasynnash2 (talk) 11:49, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
please visit the website http://www.eepcindia.org/awards-detail.asp# for one of the award for export excellence, which depicts the notability of Mascot Metal as on this website the daily newspaper" The Economic Times" clipping of Jan 12, 2005 is cited, this award wa presented on All India Level --Mascotmayank (talk) 11:58, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the newspaper article of 12th Jan 2005, from the daily " The Economic Times" cites the All India Award Presentation Function held on 12th Jan 2005 at Oberoi Grand, Kolkata. The event was graced by Hon’ble Minister – Commerce & Industry, Govt. of India – Mr Kamal Nath. This cites the notability of company on the National level. to view the clipping kindly click here and | here.--Mascotmayank (talk) 12:10, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment now I have deleted the awards subtopic from the page, The subarticles Certificates and Recognitions and Memberships can be merged into one but these subtopics reflect the recognitions obtained by this organisation which is similar to the accreditations obtained by any university or college, so I dont think that mentioning these it promotes the company, kindly advise.--Mascotmayank (talk) 12:41, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think you may have approached this the wrong way around. Awards can add to notability where as simply being IiP accredited, or OSHA approved, or being a member of trade organisations doesn't do that. BTW just out of curiousity (and separate from current considerations of this particular article) have you reviewed the help pages yet? We can address further improvements on the articles talkpage if you'd like (it is the more appropriate place to do such). Jasynnash2 (talk) 12:59, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While the company may or may not be notable, the article reads like an advertisement, and there appears to be a conflict of interest by User:Mascotmayank. -- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 12:58, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I went through the notability article for a company or organisation and it requires that the primary criterion for notability is Press releases; autobiographies; advertising for the company, corporation, organization, or group; and other works where the company, corporation, organization, or group talks about itself—whether published by the company, corporation, organization, or group itself, or re-printed by other people. Material that is self-published, or published at the direction of the subject of the article, would be a primary source and falls under different policies. and this article fulfils it. As far as the Awards is concerned I will put it back again. --Mascotmayank (talk) 13:08, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think I've said enough on this particular page. Any improvements to the article itself can be discussed on the talkpage where it belongs. I've made my decision based on what is and isn't in the article and what can and can not be found by myself. Other editors should do the same. Thanks. Jasynnash2 (talk) 13:12, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Jasynnash2, i would be glad if you would advise improvements to this article.Thanks--Mascotmayank (talk) 13:16, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing but a PR piece with significant COI issues. ukexpat (talk) 14:00, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unencyclopedic COI promotion. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:05, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Despite being a brick and mortar business that actually makes stuff, the showings of notability are inadequate, and this has major conflict of interest and style problems. Industry awards and listings do not meet the business notability guidelines. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:09, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please suggest any other changes towards notability of the company, I am working in coherence to your guidelines and not against them by any chance.Please advise--Mascotmayank (talk) 15:06, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- Let's look at Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) criteria.
"A company, corporation, organization, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject. The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. Once notability is established, primary sources may be used to add content. The "secondary sources" in the criterion include reliable published works in all forms, such as (for example) newspaper articles, books, television documentaries, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations except for the following:

Press releases; autobiographies; advertising for the company, corporation, organization, or group; and other works where the company, corporation, organization, or group talks about itself—whether published by the company, corporation, organization, or group itself, or re-printed by other people. Material that is self-published, or published at the direction of the subject of the article, would be a primary source and falls under different policies.

Works carrying merely trivial coverage; such as (for examples) newspaper articles that simply report meeting times or extended shopping hours, or the publications of telephone numbers, addresses, and directions in business directories." (excerpt ended)

The sources I found are independent of the subject and come from reliable newspapers and the India government website (See reference no 1,6 and 7). The material used to prove notability does not come from the company, nor does it come from any of the suppliers. The proving notability sources are not directories and do not mention shopping hours and the like. I request you all to please review the article and advise changes instead of deleting it.--Mascotmayank (talk) 04:54, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The COI page states, "If you do write an article on an area in which you are personally involved, be sure to write in a neutral tone and cite reliable, third-party published sources, and beware of unintentional bias." I do not own the company, nor do I work at the company. The company belongs to my father and is among the top exporters from India in the S.S.I.( Small Scale Industries) unit. This company supplies products directly or indirectly to the Focus, Wickes who already have Wikipedia articles, I thought it would make a relevant article so I decided to do some research on the internet and talk to a few people who have been at the company for a while.

As far as COI goes, I cite that I, gain nothing financially, make no legal gains, am not promoting myself nor am I campaigning. The only criterion met under COI is "close relationships". However, Wikipedia explicitly states, "Closeness to a subject does not mean you're incapable of being neutral, but it may incline you towards some bias." I agree - closeness "may" incline one towards bias. I have tried to write this article from a neutral point of view and would like to receive suggestions from the members. Many thanks.--Mascotmayank (talk) 05:05, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The conflict of interest is the creation of the article itself. As far as SPAM goes, Wikipedia is an incredibly-heavily trafficked site. Having this page up, no matter what it says, implies notability. Bands, artists, websites and companies are constantly creating articles that are deleted. No matter how well the article is written, if it fails WP:Notability then it qualifies as SPAM. JohnnyMrNinja 06:18, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From the wikipedia WP:Notability page " The topic of an article should be notable, or "worthy of notice". Notability is distinct from "fame", "importance", or "popularity", although these may positively correlate with it. A topic is presumed to be sufficiently notable to merit an article if it meets the general notability guidelines below, or if it meets an accepted subject-specific standard listed in the table at the right. If an article currently does not cite reliable secondary sources, that does not necessarily mean that its topic is not notable.

Further from the wikipedia Notability (organisations and companies) page, it states that An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. All content must be verifiable.

The point for worthy of being noted for Mascot Metal Manufacturers article is that 1.) It is among the top export business companies from India in the builder's hardware S.S.I.(Small Scale Industries) segment, providing clean, safe, and socially responsible metal products in the worldwide market. 2.) March 2008 Mascot Metal Manufacturers ties up with a leading Italian brand BRUNI.

Also please click | here , please click | here and please click | here for the verifiability clause. These are relaible Secondary Source which wikipedia demands of.--Mascotmayank (talk) 10:13, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

None of these would signify "significant coverage". I mean no offense, but there is nothing to signify the company is notable by WP standards. JohnnyMrNinja 07:14, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the Mascot Metal Manufacturers has just a few media coverages showing its awards achieved, but I request you to gain your attention on the point that wikipedia notability page also advises Please consider notable and demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education. Large organizations are likely to have more readily available verifiable information from reliable sources that provide evidence of notability; however, smaller organizations can be notable, just as individuals can be notable, and arbitrary standards should not be used to create a bias favoring larger organizations., I would like to point out that MMM is a Small Scale Industry besides it does export of its whole products, so it does not holds wide media coverage and has an influence over the local workforce providing employment to many. --Mascotmayank (talk) 08:24, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 08:40, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would request you to please advise me the exact clause under which this article fails the criteria of Notability, it might be possible that I am lacking some essential information. Please advise. --Mascotmayank (talk) 10:08, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have also included/added articles on Optical Fiber article but no objections have been made, this is my first page and I have been loaded with allegations, so it might be possible that I have missed some something essential. Kindly advise. Many thanks. --Mascotmayank (talk) 10:08, 20 June 2008 (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.