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 with the option to draftify. There's consensus, albeit not the strongest, that the topic is notable, but the article is not in a fit state to be published. Concerns about paid editing have been raised, and remain unresolved. I would be willing to entertain a request for draftification from established editors with no previous history of editing this article, or alternatively from an editor willing to commit to independent review via AfC. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:16, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This article is all corporate puffery. The references are churnalism and cannot be used to verify WP:NCORP. It has been draftified once already as corporate puffery and potential COI editing, and passes the duck test as UPE. I would send this back to draft again but that would be move warring and against policy, which is why I have brought it here.
At present the view expressed seems to be that of the corporation with no balancing views
While an article on the entity may be warranted WP:TNT will be required, and any COI/UPE eliminated. FiddleTimtrentFaddleTalk to me 08:26, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. The creator who is editing this page since 2015 is declaring WP:COI only in 2021 when he/she has been asked at the talk page. Despite for so long period, the entity fails WP:NCORP also it lacks credibility because it fails to comply with WP:NPOV. Besides that, there is a strong doubt w.r.t. WP:UPE. -Hatchens (talk) 09:56, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY and WP:CORPDEPTH. Have made significant additions and deletions that I feel should satisfy the concerns raised by others. Expanded on land controversy, added a water allocation controversy and a financial mismanagement incident. Other stuff too! If this still perceives promotional and in favour of company, let me know! Explaining corpdepth now: subject passes WP:CORPDEPTH. The draftified version indeed was full of puffery. But this version is not and I am curious to learn what portions are being perceived as puffery or non-neutral. Happy to further work on those. If the concerns were with WP:NPOV, could have been speedily deleted too though. G11 is a great tool for that. Putting out WP:THREE and few more
[1], a complete article on the split itself by a staff journalist Jyoti Mukul. There are many more similar articles talking about Indiabulls split. I wanted to cite one in Livemint but I remember livemint is not much of a WP:RS so will stay with Business Standard.
[2] The Indian Express article discusses the company in context of the Land controversy and how it didn't file the petition and later said it didn't need to.
[3] Another IE article discussing the state of Nashik Powerplant written by staff journalist.
[4] A Times of India article on Adani's looking to take over Amravati plant written by staff journalist. I know TOI has no consensus on reliability but while it's not reliable, it's also not non-reliable. In this context, there is independent commentary and it can be considered reliable source.
[5] This one - I find it pretty much gold standard. There is a complete analysis of the company's solar business and how it is in 'sunset' mode.
[6] Another controversy talked in Economic Times about finance mismanagement by in house staff writers.
You will find many more sources about the subject if we do a WP:BEFORE. A lot of those are press releases but there are also sources that effectively contributes to notability. Also, if you would search Indiabulls Power, you will again find more. Hope this clarifies.
Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 13:17, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Extended content
Thank you Nomadicghumakkad for sharing these sources.Now, let's analyze all these sources and your current ongoing edits. Please do bear with me.
The majority of the sources that you shared are related to this entity's negative coverage. Intentionally, the actual narrative was never used by the creator and somehow you simply overlooked it or subdued it, and passed it in the first place. And just to make it acceptable - you expanded that controversy segment and ended it as per the narrative which shows that this entity is not at fault.
Now, let's look at the source whose actual story was never picked up by the creator;
3. Now, after the digging, you have added the NCLT news link which talks about insolvency and bankruptcy ffiling
4.Except for this gold standard link, there was no other negative narrative in the first place.
Why these negative narratives or controversies-related edits were not added in the first place? As an AfC reviewer, have you ever questioned yourself? I would have let this pass but here our concern is not this company - our concern right now is how a reviewer who ranks no.4 in the list of top 100 AfC reviewers in the last 30 days can act so callously? Now, after holding you on these issues... you are trying to expand the article and trying to make a fool out of us.
Feel free to reply at your convenience. I am looking forward to you as one of the best reviewers in the near future. Please do not disappoint me - it's a request. -Hatchens (talk) 15:27, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Hatchens, I am not trying to make fool out of anybody - only trying to address the issues that are felt by others. Like I said and told you at your talk page [7], I agree that I should have done a better job at balancing the article, which I have done after I realized that others feel that is was not balanced enough. I am unsure why you are taking it so personally. This is a collaborative project, we make mistakes and work with each other to rectify it. We can also feel differently about things and we have right to. I have worked hard on AFC project for long time and I feel I have understanding of WP:CORPDEPTH since I myself nominate and participate in articles relating to this. My AFD rate is 87% [8] for over 400 AFD discussions and my nomination is 80% [9]. When I accepted the article, I felt it qualified WP:CORPDEPTH and the paragraph I added, I felt that it was sufficient to bring a balance. Now that others have pointed out, I realize it was not as balanced as it should have been and hence worked to fix it. Not sure why you think I am trying to fool someone. Are you taking it personally because I felt differently for Draft:Vin Gupta that you wanted to accept? Like I said before, I was okay for you to accept it if you felt it passed the guidelines and I even helped in cleaning it up. Also, I didn't know that it was an incorrect way. Thanks for letting me know! Though I am reading the page and I am not finding where it's written that I can't submit and accept on my own. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 15:51, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Nomadicghumakkad, kindly get me a better argument. Why should I bother you for Draft:Vin Gupta? Haven't you read my comments over there?
Comment 1: " I'll not override your decision. All I can do is... request you to reassess draft. "
Comment 2: "I would advise all of us... to wait for another reviewers' opinion. This way we can guarantee an unbiased outcome to this AfC. " - from where it looks like I'm offended by your denial.
Don't mix two different things. Here we are talking about your controversial editing, submission, and acceptance of RattanIndia. Let's stick to it only.
You may say something but feel differently and act differently. About Rattan, I think I have already explained. I don't see it controversial. What's happening here is the due process. I accept an article because I feel it is notable as per my understanding of guidelines, others feel that it is not and they don't agree with my accept so they nominate it for deletion, I improve the draft by addressing the concerns others have raised and defend the article in AFD. This happens all the time. That's why WP:HEY exists. You are simply trying to corner me because you felt I didn't add as much controversy as you would have liked to. But that's a difference of opinion. After hearing your sentiments about it, I have added more. But you see it as a way to 'fool' others which it is not. And yes, it says strongly discouraged and In those cases, it's basically a formality, since an editor who has the ability to create new pages in article space could have done so in the first place. I feel the same way. What would have happened was - I would have asked the editor to submit it again and then I have reviewed it. So was another formality oriented step in between. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 16:27, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Nomadicghumakkad - Pinging Primefac - not for their vote on this Afd. But, just letting them know how your viewpoints on AfC reviewing are evolving. After all, sooner or later; they need to assess a probationary AfC reviewer. All the best. I'm surrendering and signing off because of unwanted deviation which is happening over this AfD discussion. -Hatchens (talk) 16:40, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Hatchens, I understand. It has been very triggering for me as well. Thanks for tagging Primefac. I am sure they will appreciate my work over a thousand reviews [10] out of which, only one so far was deleted through AFD. And if they feel my views are not correct, they will help me understand how and guide me how to bring them back to where they should be rather than attacking me. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 16:46, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hatchens and Nomadicghumakkad I believe you have both diverted yourselves from the deletion discussion, and diverted the discussion itself. Please will one or other of you collapse the diversion, including my comment here, so that editors may not be distracted by this interesting discussion unless they wish to be?. One of the {{collapse}} templates will meet that need. I believe you should continue the discussion on one or other of your talk pages. You may disagree. FiddleTimtrentFaddleTalk to me 17:40, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per the nomination, there is too much POV editing and promotional content to salvage the article in it's current form. MrsSnoozyTurtle 21:19, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The content has changed significantly from the point of time it was nominated and hence I referred to WP:HEY. If there are POV problems in current version, please highlight where and those can also be fixed. Wikipedia:Deletion is not cleanup. I have also reworked on it in a way that it is borderline WP:TNT. Also, WP:LISTED. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 23:35, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Extended content
Comment: Thanks to MrsSnoozyTurtle for bringing out new information about the creator of this page. Still, I'm very skeptical to use such details over Wikipedia because it breaches the privacy of that person. But, at the same time, we cannot ignore it either because the creator is directly working at the Chairman's office of RattanIndia which he didn't declare it... since 2015. I'm not sure what would be the outcome of this AfD. But it is allowing us to get an opportunity to investigate such corporate reputation building on Wikipedia.
Question 1: Why a company like RattanIndia suddenly became active on Wikipedia and intentionally stamping out/subdueing all negative news?
Answer: As a retail investor, when I invest in a publicly listed stock - my first important point of reference is Wikipedia because as we all know passing WP:NCORP in today's time is not every one's cup of tea. Also, we noted that, the creator became suddenly active and did the first edit of 2021 (that was in June) - after a gap of five years (his last edit was in 2017). Why? The reason is very simple; till April 7-8, 2021 the trading price of the company's share was ₹7-8 and in the first week of June 2021 the shares were at ₹17-18 but by the end of the June i.e. 30th of the month it reached ₹44 and by the Oct 1, 2021 media started rolling out the narrative how a penny stock (RattanIndia shares) became a multi-bagger. All the major positive narrative edits from the creator started occuring June 25 onwards and occassionaly the page was de-spamed by the editors like QuiteUnusual and finally the page was draftified by MrsSnoozyTurtle on August 27, 2021. Now, its very much clear that the whole operation of positive narrative building is being run from Chairman's office (of the company).
Question 2: Why I doubt the reviewer? (This is not an attack! This is a question - I hoping that I'm wrong in my assessment)
Answer: The current ongoing development where Nomadicghumakkad's edits, submission and acceptance are in the doubt. As an editor, they could have moved the page directly. Why to even bother for AfC route? AfC route is not at all a mandatory steps for a seasoned editor. If a seasoned editor chooses it, then it depicts their intent to be part of unbiased editing and approval process. Anyway, the AfC route was taken in this case (submission and the review - both are done by the same user). Now, when you get questioned - a typical self-victimization card is being played for a variety of reasons to manipulate others. I would have not objected at all if Nomadicghumakkad has added the rightful content to the draft and moved it. The needle of doubt moved towards them when they expanded the "controversy segment" with company's point of view and passing it off to main article namespace.
Question 3: What are the real life consequences of such edits? Ref: WP:WRW
Answer: In this case, the real life consequences are for two different set of people here. The first one is the company, which is using Wikipedia as one of tools to manipulate influence the stock prices. Other editors can question on this and I have no such hard evidence to prove. But, when the draft was moved to main article namespace on November 1, 2021 - the very next day the stock price of the company jumped from ₹40.70 to ₹43.15 by 10:00 AM at NSE. And most of the trade was executed by retail investor (not instituional buying). The stock was on the downhill since MrsSnoozyTurtle draftified the page (on August 27, 2021) and now today, stock is trading at ₹45.30 and moving upwards since November 2. I'm not saying that other factors are not there to influence to stock price. But, Wikipedia is an extremely potent tool when its pages are being feeded into various stock price terminals like Bloomberg Terminal, and media monitoring tools such as Meltwater, etc. So, we can easily conclude that this page (of RattanIndia) is systematically used by the company to propogate positive narrative and having a strong ulterior motive for doing something, which I believe that they have a hidden reason for doing it.
And, the second set of people who are going to witness a real life consequences because of the edits on this company's wikipedia page are the retail investors; who are not well versed to read the financial statements of the company, but depends on sites like Wikipedia to execute hunch-based buying and selling of stock.
If this kind of activity was detected in the United States, it would had been duly reported to SEC for the direct involvment of the company's higher office who have asymmetric information to influence the stock price. Kindly note, this whole analysis is based on Wikipedia edits and involvement of certain set of editors. There is no direct evidence to nail this company and put an allegation of stock price manipulation but yes there are enough evidence that this company is trying to influence it. -Hatchens (talk) 04:58, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for a great conspiracy theory! [11] Page stats show 173 visitors in last 30 days. The page is not indexed I think. If you feel because 173 people (in last 30 days) found that company exists which led to the share price increase, it would be a miracle. Just for you to know, India has Diwali Festival right now. On one of the pre-diwali days, there is another festival called Dhanteras on which it is auspicious to invest in metal. But in modern times, folks also invest in stocks. Overall, Diwali festival can explain the fluctuations I guess. But, I don't know stocks too much and this is an educated guess. Yet, I don't see a scientific correlation between Wikipedia page and stock prices. I won't explain myself further. If I had intention to promote the company, I didn't even need to elaborate on controversy. You felt it was in favour of company, I didn't feel so and that's there. Best Wishes and Happy Diwali. Collapsing this again so that the discussion isn't diverted with our internal bickering. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 13:53, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I personally believe this article merits to be kept per the last AfD. However, provided the "miraculous AfC approval" by Nomadicghumakkad - I think this article should be deleted - as the nominator argues. Let it be started from a scratch but since UPE is involved, I seek Rosguill's assistance. Is the AfC reviewer as well a part of UPE group? I don't make any accusations but leave this difficult work to Rosguill ─ The Aafī(talk) 15:31, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if/when I'm going to be able to take a proper look into this; if you want timely anti-UPE advice I suggest you either contact another editor involved in this work or take it to a relevant noticeboard. signed, Rosguilltalk 17:31, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you felt that this was to be kept as per first AFD outcome (meaning you consider that the subject is notable), why would my accept appear Miraculous? As a matter of fact, if we look at first AFD, as per the sources cited there, it won't qualify as WP:CORPDEPTH. [12] North America had highlighted that they had defended the subject in past AFD but guidelines have become stricter and hence, those arguments might not be true any more. And they weren't. I had accepted it after my own assessment of new sources cited and those that I found after searching. Also, COI was already declared and informed by the creator at the same venue. I had also clarified right here that I find the company notable but have problem with WP:NPOV. To that, creator ceremonially added a line which I expanded and accepted. The key pain point here is that folks here feel that the way I expanded, it seemed like I was talking in favour of company. I felt I wasn't and was providing a balanced perspective. And when others raised that point, I expanded further to bring the desired balance. Unsure what else is expected out of me. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 20:59, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The subject is notable and the article is acceptable. I would need to investigate the history before making further comments. DGG ( talk ) 05:07, 4 November 2021 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Coverage appears to be to be superficial. Stifle (talk) 12:27, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: More uninvolved eyes would be helpful. The discussion so far seems to be between whether history of puffery/COI warrants a fresh start and the article has been modified since the start of the discussion Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, XymmaxSo let it be writtenSo let it be done 14:23, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with others above that the topic company is notable but the fact that there are significant concerns over WP:UPE means that the article contents, choice of language and headings, choice of references, etc, have all been guided and chosen in an underhanded way in order to influence the perception of the topic company. I say WP:TNT and wait. In much the same principle behind notability, if the company merits an article then an uninvolved third party will write one. HighKing++ 08:29, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The company is significant, and I don't think deletion makes much sense. The article is not particularly extensive, and it should not be too difficult to re-write. Due to its structure, Wikipedia tends to be underweight corporate articles. The problem comes about because most of the pieces about companies are written up by insiders and so inevitably they tend to read like corporate spin, and thus fail the NPOV test. As such, they end up getting deleted eventually. But even though some of the entities are significant enough to warrant an article, once the article on the company is deleted, they are seldom seen again, as the most active Wikipedia editors tend not to be particularly interested in the corporate sphere. Inchiquin 14:23, 10:45, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
KeepWP:TNT is only valid if it's purely promo or senseless, which is not the case. Sources are valid and this is what afd has to decide.As per WP:ATD remove the line instead of page.Content is helpful but need to twist slightly.Sonofstar (talk) 06:28, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: More uninvolved eyes would continue to be helpful. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mikehawk10 (talk) 08:12, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete :No comments about puffery and other related issues. The entity fails WP:CORPDEPTH according to my analysis. I puts up WP:TNT as the best option. Akevsharma (talk) 00:23, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. I intended to close this as "delete", but am convinced by arguments made in the discussion that an effort should be made to salvage the article. However, I also agree with HighKing that we can not allow Wikipedia to be used as an advertising platform, and every aspect of a UPE article is susceptible to manipulation requiring review. BD2412T 01:41, 30 November 2021 (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.
