Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nilkamal Plastics (2nd nomination)

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. Sandstein 09:47, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nilkamal Plastics[edit]

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

Obviously promotional article with major contributions for editors listed at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Amitabhaitc DGG ( talk ) 19:47, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Regardless of whether KuwarOnline is a sockpuppet or meatpuppet (as of the time of this writing this account was mentioned in the investigation only today, by the same editor who has started the AFD. It did not come up in the checkuser, but of course that won't catch meatpuppetry, so the allegation may well be true, but is irrelevant) this article was revised significantly from their last draft, contains many reliable secondary sources supporting its claims, and is neutral in tone (with the possible exception of the @home section, that one could probably use some work). Nilkamal is, as far as I can tell, a notable furniture brand in India. I sense a degree of WP:GEOBIAS in the deletion of articles about Indian firms. After all, we have articles like these (Relicore and Resilio) about US firms that show absolutely no notability, yet an article about, per The Hindu (a reliable independent publication), the world's largest manufacturer of moulded furniture and Asia's largest processor of plastic moulded products is repeatedly challenged. --HighFlyingFish (talk) 23:44, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:31, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:31, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The nature of Indian news coverage in this field is the reason why so many articles on Indian companies get deleted. Just look at the article--it's an advertorial. They couldn't have done it more promotionally if they had written it themselves, instead of getting the newspaper to write it. Looking at the edit pattern, the sockpuppettry is utterly obvious and presumably represents paid editing. If the firm is notable, someone else will need to start an article. DGG ( talk ) 05:18, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete My first thought on first reading was there was no assertion of significance. My second and third thoughts as well. Then I looked at the citations. At first blush, the cites appear impressive. Appearances are sometimes deceiving. They do not treat the subject in depth and are entirely promotional in nature. Ergo, does not meet GNG. The article is a shallow promo puff piece rather than an encyclopedia article, which is unsurprising. The sources cited are shallow promo puff pieces which serve only to promote the subject without covering the subject objectively and in depth. One source in particular describes a publicity stunt by the subject. Dlohcierekim (talk) 05:37, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Bah. I won't blame DGG, because none of the Indian editors showed up the last time this was discussed. Otherwise this would have been an WP:AGF keep if multiple Indian editors in standing had asserted to its notability. Probably none of the Indian editors watch Indian TV or use plastic products, so I will assume WP:AGF about their lack of participation as well. My harping without any backup probably gave off the illusion that this was indeed not notable, and I was some kind of POV editor/sockpuppet. The last time this was discussed, there were three Indian editors involved. Me, the nominator and the creator. WP:CORPDEPTH is skewed against Indian companies, so a lot of articles about Indian companies would probably end up being deleted if taken to AfD. However I find it hard to understand why an Indian editor would nominate a popular company like Nilkamal, even though I will still assume AGF again, and assume probably he is one of the editors who falls in the above categories, or is a deletionist who would rather see all articles which don't satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH get deleted. However I still find it strange as to why Nilkamal's biggest competitor, Supreme Industries, which is much smaller] than Nilkamal was never considered for deletion by anybody, even though Nilkamal's page has mentioned that Supreme was their biggest competitor for quite some time now. Please don't think I am insinuating at WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but I feel that since the bigger company does not satisfy any of the norms, that should also hold for the much smaller company, and in the interest of ruling out any bias in nominations, Supreme should also be AfDed. Could @DGG: or @Dlohcierekim: look at Supreme Industries, and see if it satisfies WP:CORPDEPTH or WP:GNG and decide on the merits of an AfD as I seem to be very bad at it. And as for Nilkamal, I have always associated plastics with Nilkamal (and Supreme). But if none of the other Indian editors feel so, then probably this should be deleted as well. Jupitus Smart 17:27, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If someone thinks page is suitable for discussion at AfD, I recommend that they nominate it for discussion at AfD.Dlohcierekim (talk) 21:40, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

agreed. But what I would really like to see is stronger article with sources where there is no possibility of a failure of independence in the sourcing. DGG ( talk ) 04:44, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:04, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- available sources do not meet WP:CORPDEPTH while this content can just as effectively housed on a company web site. Not all listed companies are notable, and nothing here warrants an encyclopedia article. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:17, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I am still of the opinion that this company is significant, given its size and the media coverage it has received. The changes to the @home section are an improvement IMO and I think they show that the article is about a notable topic and can be improved. If this article is deleted, I guess we would also delete Supreme Industries to avoid giving WP:UNDUE weight? Or is there a reason to think that company is more notable than this one despite being smaller? --HighFlyingFish (talk) 21:29, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:38, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm one of the first to delete advertorial content but this isn't delete worthy, the references included as well as those available in searches (for both the parent company and subsidiaries) are more than sufficient to pass WP:CORP/ WP:GNG. —SpacemanSpiff 02:56, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Trying another time to generate sufficient discussion for a clear consensus
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 08:48, 10 July 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.