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. There does not appear to be any rejoinder to the analysis provided arguing that the subject does not meet WP:NCORP _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:02, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ananta Group[edit]

Ananta Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:NCORP, WP:SIRS. scope_creep^Talk 21:19, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Bangladesh. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:38, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and possible COI issues. ParadaJulio (talk) 13:39, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Large textile company in a country where textile is the main industry and the country is one of the largest producers of textiles. What COI issue is there @ParadaJulio? Since I created the article, I would like an elaboration on that statement. See [[1]], which is in-depth and significant coverage.;Vinegarymass911 (talk) 16:59, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your the editor who created this article. That reference you have given is as good as an example of PR as I've seen that fails WP:ORGIND and not being independent fails WP:SIRS. Its total puff piece. scope_creep^Talk 18:53, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We will go through the references. scope_creep^Talk 18:56, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Lets examine the references:

• Ref 1 [2] Description of the company formation, including quotes taken from the company website. PR. Fails WP:SIRS. Not independent.
• Ref 2 [3] PWC India Case Study. It could have been a good ref, but it only three paragraphs and is not in-depth, failing WP:SIRS.
• Ref 3 [4] X of Y profiles article. Single profile. Not in-depth. Fails WP:SIRS.
• Ref 4 [5] Passing mention. Not in-depth. Fails WP:SIRS.
• Ref 5 [6] Funding news. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH.
• Ref 6 [7] Press-release . Fails WP:SIRS as not independent.
• Ref 7 [8] Press release. Its all company financials. Fails WP:SIRS.
• Ref 8 [9] Passing mention from a press-release. Fails WP:ORGIND WP:SIRS

All the references here are either PR, press-releases, passing mentions, or come from the company website. It fails WP:NCORP. scope_creep^Talk 06:19, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:05, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment-Articles written by journalists, named journalists, are not press releases. By what criteria are we defining press releases?Vinegarymass911 (talk) 01:20, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I think the issue is, although they are published from named journalists, are almost entirely taken from the press releases and/or are comprised largely of interviews. Scope creep may be able to explain their reasoning in more detail. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 01:54, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment They are press-releases or come from press-releases and used as composite sources or come from the company website. The argument isn't really around the fact that it is a named journalist. That is an aspect of how information is presented as a journalistic story when its not, although we can talk about what the modern journalist is. It is not what it was in the 1980's before social media eviscerated the industry, although they are coming back. This is private company. All of the information that is available on this company, comes from this company, or the staff, all of it. The modern company puts out a lot of information. These stories built are composite sources where the information is available from multiple locations, indicating it has been put out as press releases or comes from the company web or company financials or people in the company. The same text is seen in the multiple places. There is nothing original in the references, that makes them either independent, indepth, or fits the defintion of WP:NCORP. As an expert in WP:NCORP and having done hundreds of Afd's, if they're was any chance the company was notable, it wouldn't made it, to Afd. scope_creep^Talk 08:02, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. NCORP is one of the hardest criteria to meet on Wikipedia but it is that way because of the inherently - and understandably - promotional nature of business. We would need to have at least one full article (i.e. SIGCOV) by an independent quality RS (a major Indian newspaper) on the business to have a WP company article. I don't see that the refs provided meet that yet. Aszx5000 (talk) 16:39, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It would need more than that per WP:THREE. scope_creep^Talk 20:52, 3 June 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.