Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Findoc

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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 03:18, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Findoc

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Fails WP:NCORP. I am unable to locate any WP:SIGCOV in independent and reliable sources. Pretty much all of the coverage originates from press releases issued by the company. Maduant (talk) 23:04, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, and India. Maduant (talk) 23:04, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Punjab-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:27, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:SIGCOV - - - 👑Misterrrrr👑 (talk) 06:16, 15 February 2023 (UTC) blocked as a sock. Akevsharma (talk) 15:25, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comments. Two of the sources, from India Times, are presumed to be notable as a paper of record. The other seem to be less so. I would probably go either weak delete or weak keep if forced to vote, but I am on the fence. Bearian (talk) 17:24, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Your comments isn't clear. Are you saying that sources from a "paper of record" are presumed to ~~be notable?~~ meet the criteria for establishing notability? That isn't the case but again, not sure if I'm understanding you correctly. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:37, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP guidelines apply which require references that discuss the topic (ie the *company*) in detail. WP:SIRS tells us that *each* reference must meet all the criteria for establishing notability - at least two deep or significant sources containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. References cannot rely *only* on information provided by the company such as articles that rely entirely on quotations, press releases, announcements, interviews, website information, etc - even when reworded or modified. If it isn't *clearly* showing independent content then it fails ORGIND. Also, quantity of "coverage" isn't relevant nor the "quality" of the publication - a million "mentions" or single-sentence descriptions in the highest quality reliable source does not meet the criteria, nor can multiple sources be combined.

In this case, the references are either basic information or regurgitated announcements as follows:

This in aninews is an announcement about winning an award copied (see bottom of article) from this Press Release issued by the company. Primary source. Fails WP:ORGIND.
This in India Times, this in Business Today, this in Financial Express and also this in India Times are clearly entirely based on company announcements or PR and do not contain any "Independent Content". They fail ORGIND
This and this in India Times are standard company listing/descriptions, not significant, fails SIGCOV and ORGIND
Finally, This is a mere mention-in-passing, fails CORPDEPTH

None of the sources meet GNG/NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:37, 18 February 2023 (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.