Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sheetal Manufacturing 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. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:47, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Sheetal Manufacturing Company Pvt. Ltd.[edit]
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Sheetal Manufacturing Company Pvt. Ltd. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable company, no coverage, just passing mentions and a potential hit piece in a non-rs, and employing 1500 people in a city of 7 million is not even significant. Note: I looked under Sheetal Group, Sheetal Manufacturing and Sheetal Diamonds, same outcome. Praxidicae (talk) 17:38, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:55, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:55, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
- I haven't looked into notability yet, but must point out that employing 1500 people in Mumbai is just as important as would be employing all 1500 people in a village, so that bit of the nomination statement is invalid. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:35, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
- It was in reference to the decline. Stating x company employs y number of people is irrelevant. Praxidicae (talk) 19:46, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
- Well then, what was the relevance in giving the population of Mumbai? I'll treat that as a rhetorical question and give the answer myself: obviously none at all. Why don't you just present the facts in deletion discussions rather than attempt to poison the well? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:56, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
- I believe I have explained this. Specifically because the decline was based on the number of employees, which you'd know if you read the history of the article. Take a chill pill. Praxidicae (talk) 00:29, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
- Well then, what was the relevance in giving the population of Mumbai? I'll treat that as a rhetorical question and give the answer myself: obviously none at all. Why don't you just present the facts in deletion discussions rather than attempt to poison the well? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:56, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
- It was in reference to the decline. Stating x company employs y number of people is irrelevant. Praxidicae (talk) 19:46, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete – having 1500 employees is enough of a claim of significance to decline an A7, but not enough to save this article. I can't find enough sources to satisfy NCORP. Bradv🍁 19:54, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.