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 of the debate was Keep MindTree. We seem to have finally got it right on the fourth (or more) deletion discussion. - CrazyRougeian talk/email 09:58, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Does not meet the criteria of WP:CORP. It appears that this article is a recreation of a previously deleted article. MindTree Consulting was previously deleted (See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MindTree Consulting). I am also nominating the related page, MindTree, which appears to be a recreation of a deleted article, for the same reason. Agent 86 18:37, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Follow Up: Also found this: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MindTree (second nomination). If these are both deleted again, they ought to be protected. Agent 86 18:44, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • Further Follow Up. I have reverted this discussion to this version. My reasons for nomination have been moved and largely deleted in the two subsequent unsigned edits. While Ziggurat has done a lot of work to improve one of the articles (I see the other one has been blanked), I have begun to become concerned by the number of unsigned comments and am rather perturbed by the deletion of the reasons I originally posted. Agent 86 09:27, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Vinod11176 is the editor I should have credited. Zig found the news reports.) Agent 86 09:34, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree, there have been quite a few messy edits by anons here. Could any further contributors please add any relevant comments to the bottom of the discussion, and be careful not to delete anyone else's edits! Ziggurat 02:36, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy G4 per nom. Tevildo 19:03, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy per Tevildo Rklawton 19:59, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Do not delete' This is a big name brand company in India. Vinods
• Speedy delete per above Danny Lilithborne 23:39, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong KeepI have been following MindTree closely, and it has been the topic of discussion in India for more than 5 years. Iam not a client or an employee. Iam an engineering professional, who accords this company as much respect as Wipro and Infosys. It has been featured in a number of magazines as very employee friendly. Attaching the CIO Weblog that talks about MindTree's Intellectual Capital Assessment. Vidya
• Delete and protect. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-07-04 01:48Z
• Should not be deleted. Mindtree is well-known in India, US and Europe and its emminent that it features in wikipedia. - Mayank
• Don't delete : MindTree among Top 10 Indian MAKE ((Most Admired Knowledge Enterprise) Finalists Prasad Vegi
• Strong Keep it's patently obvious from the MindTree in the Media section of their website that this company qualifies under WP:CORP (multiple non-trivial third-party publications), and I can only attribute the continued deletion to a lack of research. I'll go add sources now... Ziggurat 21:01, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Yesterday's example of Non-Trivial publication Here is yet another example of media catching on a novel act by MindTree. MindTree is a benchmark organisation in for the Indian media. That must make it worthy of a place in Wikipedia. Home-Office:Bridge the Gap Vinods comment was added by contribs) .
• Update I've added sources from The Hindu, The Times of India, The Economic Times, and others to MindTree. If a company has articles about it in a 4-million circulation newspaper, and the second largest financial daily in the world, and the largest English-language daily newspaper in the world, it's probably going to be worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. I strongly recommend that this be kept, that the duplicates be changed to redirects, and if this is done I'm going to suggest that MindTree Consulting is made into a redirect also.Ziggurat 22:07, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Given the improvement in the article, I'm happy to withdraw my nomination, but do take a bit of umbrage at the veiled suggestion that this was a bad-faith nom (especially given the state of the article when I found it and the fact it was a recreation after numerous previous deletions). Remember to assume good faith. Agent 86 22:31, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies if I came across as brusque! The recreation of the article was indeed out of process, and I'm sure you nominated it in good faith. My comment wasn't directed at you; rather, I was annoyed at the original AfD (which I missed) because a one-minute google search (or even a quick consultation of the press page on the company's own website) would have rendered it unnecessary. I see a few new users contributing to the article, and this discussion, and I'd hate for them to be driven off for want of a little legwork on the part of AfD participants. Ziggurat 22:43, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Please keep this article. MindTree is a company with a difference- innovative HR policies, stress on ethics in workplace and a key contributor to social sphere of Indian society (details can be obtained from numerous articles and publications already mentioned in some of the comments above- The Hindu, The Times of India, Business World toname a few). With recent improvements in the article, it should be kept.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.196.143.180 (talk • contribs) .
• Please keep this article. MindTree is one of the prominent mid size IT companies and definitely deserves mention in Wikepedia--Chennaizombie 12:18, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep**

Searching for Mindtree, I found this page about deletion. Mindtree is a very sucessful and reputable BPO. Please keep the article so as to enlighten others about Mindtree and business process outsourcing.

• Speedy delete Mindtree (tagged as no content) but Keep MindTree that does seem a notable company. TerriersFan 18:17, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further Follow Up** Iam creating an article in Wikipedia for the first time - hence pardon me if Iam requesting this out of turn. The sense I get is that a lot of folks are for keeping this article and Agent 86 also agreed to withdraw his nomination. Could we not decide on a keep and close this discussion now? User:Vinod11176:Vinods

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.