Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nilkamal Plastics

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 no consensus. I am not particularly swayed by the majority of this article's sources, which appear to be press releases. But I am leery of systemic bias and the article (post-rewrite) isn't promotional in tone and the assertion that the subject is the world's largest maker of plastic furniture suggests notability. A Train^talk 10:52, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nilkamal Plastics[edit]

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

A non notable company with only passing mentions in references. Lacks WP:CORPDEPTH ChunnuBhai (talk) 06:06, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have added references which give detailed about company not just passing reference, also its world largest plastic companye.g. here. I dont know how its non notable. Also we should improve articles if they lack in details instead of deleting them. We all here to make wikipedia more detailed as much as we can. KuwarOnline^Talk 07:22, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:22, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:23, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:00, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:35, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Significant independent coverage in the article. The company is the primary topic of several of the references. Seems notable. --HighFlyingFish (talk) 06:41, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. AusLondonder (talk) 06:49, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Although other editors above have stated that the company has received "independent" "significant" coverage in "multiple reliable sources", a simple analysis on those sources demonstrates otherwise:

There are 7 references listed. The first and last are from the company's website. They fail as they are primary sources.

The second reference is from a stock exchange feed showing the stock price. This also fails WP:CORPDEPTH as it a essentially a listing

The third reference reports on a new business and fails both WP:CORPDEPTH as it is an advertorial, quoting company execs as a news story

The fourth reference is a directory entry and therefore fails WP:CORPDEPTH

The fifth reference starts out good but then you realise it is another advertorial and fails for the same reasons as the third reference

The sixth reference is another directory entry and fails for the same reasons as the fourth.

I did find one reference - an India Times article which seems to meet the criteria but I cannot find another. If another can be found, I will change to Keep. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 19:15, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:CORP. Wikipedia is not for tracking active companies. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:40, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Here http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/markets/stocks/news/improving-margins-may-earn-nilkamal-re-rating/articleshow/54775660.cms is another good secondary source about the company. I'll add it to the article. There's a fair amount of coverage like it out there, it appears to be a notable manufacturer in India. I would be curious if there's even more media about it that isn't English-language. Remember Wikipedia:GEOBIAS. --HighFlyingFish (talk) 02:31, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It has occurred to me that after this article (hopefully) survives this AFD, @home should be merged into it. Instead of two stubs we'd then have one start class article, and there's no reason to separate the store brand from its parent company anyways IMO. @home as I understand is also part of Nikamal, and one that has received a fair amount of coverage. --HighFlyingFish (talk) 08:20, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:PROMO; nothing encyclopedically relevant here. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:12, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - besides the WP:GEOBIAS there is also a case of sector bias. [1] is probably right in that Nilkamal reminds a lot of Indians about economical, sensible and stackable plastic chairs. However plastic chairs hardly have any scope for innovation or novelty, and there is nothing to write home about them, meaning most of their mentions are related to the performance of the company in the stock market, unlike companies in the IT, Auto sectors which attract news for their new and innovative products. However I believe that being the "world’s largest manufacturer of moulded furniture and Asia's largest plastic processor of moulded products" according to The Hindu in [2] does amount to satisfying my notability criteria. A stubifying can probably be done, and @home merged with this article while probably adding more details about their history from [3].Jupitus Smart 18:42, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have since done a rewrite. Probably a WP:TNT would not be required now. Jupitus Smart 07:30, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My conviction was based on the fact that Nilkamal is probably the only company that most Indians, including me associate with Plastic furniture ([4] says its the market leader in India), alongside Supreme Industries. I went through WP:CORPDEPTH, and I think most of the new sources are enough to get it through that barrier, though apparently other editors seem to disagree. And as for sector bias, I still believe that media reports in this country are skewed in favour of new age companies, who pay to get in-depth feature(s) written by reputed media houses, and then pay editors to write glowing Wikipedia pages which cannot be deleted because they supposedly satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH due to the information that they manage to cram in each of these references. Case in point - Trendspotters.tv and AppyStore, which probably nobody other than the sockmaster who created this and the company founders might have heard of ([5]), but which still has enough references to pass WP:CORPDEPTH. If a $310 million worth multinational company cannot supposedly pass WP:CORPDEPTH, but small startups can do, then probably there is something wrong with the system. And don't bombard me with WP:OTHERSTUFF, I am not interested in any more arguments. Jupitus Smart 04:28, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- promotional. I didn't find any independent WP:RS on it. All or nearly all of the sources in the article are unacceptable. The company may be notable, but that article isn't even close to ready with the sources it has. Start over WP:TNT. --David Tornheim (talk) 04:14, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is insufficient sourced information for more than a directory entry, so perhaps a merge is appropriate--at most. The argument about sector bias is not correct -- plastic molded chairs are an important field of industrial design, and some individual designs are probably notable, and possibly individual manufacturers. But apparently there is no evidence that this one is. DGG ( talk ) 01:45, 6 May 2017 (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.