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 keep. (Nomination withdrawn) (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:29, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

TransUnion CIBIL[edit]

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

Article appears to fail WP:GNG. References fail the criteria for establishing notability and fail WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 17:44, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:58, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:58, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- This article fails on many fronts; WP:GNG is not one of them. Understanding what a credit bureau is and does is crucial to a population. What started as a fanboy article written by professionals just needs to be cleaned up. Blowing it up would be the wrong thing to do. Rhadow (talk) 21:32, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Anoptimistix "Message Me" 03:48, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Any company that has credit records on 600 million consumers is notable. I rewrote the article , addressing all the tags but AfD. Have a look. Rhadow (talk) 08:44, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rhadow, I've moved your response to below where I asked the question in order to preserve the timeline of the discussion. Hope you don't mind. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 11:47, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: as one of the four credit bureaus in India, this has obvious notability and meets our notability guidelines many times over. Softlavender (talk) 14:38, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hi Rhadow and Softlavender - can you please provide two references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. Also, please provide specific reasoning to address the concerns I made in the nomination - that is, the references fail WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND. More specifically, the references are either mentions-in-passing, or normal business-as-usual announcements or they are PRIMARY sources, based on Press Releases. If you believe there are two references that meet the criteria for notability, please list them here for review. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 16:28, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Here's an article, HighKing -- [1]
  - Rhadow, thank you very much for providing the article. Unfortunately the article fails the criteria for establishing notability. The article is marked with the word "interview" above the main heading. Policy states that references must be secondary sources that provide novel interpretations of primary sources - if you follow footnote 3, it lists (depending on context) "interviews" as a primary source. Since the article does not provide a "novel interpretation" on the words spoken by the CIO, this reference fails the criteria for establishing notability. Other guidelines expand on this interpretation - for example WP:CORPDEPTH states that quotations from an organization's personnel as story sources fail the criteria for establishing notability and WP:ORGIND states other works in which the company, corporation, organization, or group talks about itself—whether published by the company, corporation, organization, or group itself, or re-printed by other people. If you find other references, please post them here - if we can find two references that meet the criteria for establishing notability, I'm happy to change my !vote. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 11:47, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - Hello HighKing -- In my opinion, you are engaging in wikilawyering. The underlying question is this: Is an agency that maintains files on 600 million Indians and determines whether they are issued credit notable or not? I say yes. Any article that confirms the 600 million figure is worthy of inclusion. That can be a primary source, because this is a matter of fact, unlikely to be disputed (in the same way a biography can include place and date of birth without requiring a secondary source). If you dispute the 600 million figure, then put it on the table. You have some other objection to this article. What is it? Rhadow (talk) 11:57, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - Hi Rhadow, I don't believe my interpretation of policy and guidelines is "wikilawyering". Hopefully another editor might clarify. I have no disputes with any of the facts quoted in the article, but you have to understand, how can we verify any of the facts if all of the facts originate from a PRIMARY source? That is the reason we have policies and guidelines on two separate things. The first is to find two independent secondary sources that publish intellectually independent articles (references) on the company in order to meet the criteria for notability. Once a topic is deemed to pass the test for notability, we can add in information and facts. While it is preferable to quote facts from secondary sources, it is also allowable (with some caveats to cover "extraordinary" or "disputed" claims) to quote from PRIMARY sources. So although you are asking if I dispute a quoted claim of 600million files on people in India, this is the second step in the process. The first step (and the primary job of editors at AfD) is to confirm (or not) that the topic meets the criteria for inclusion (notability) and this requires two sources as described above. If this topic is as noteworthy as you state, you would imagine that there exists two sources for this purpose. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 15:16, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It appears that this is usually known as "CIBIL", with TransUnion being the multinational corporation that owns it:

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

Reliable sources with significant coverage include this book, this academic paper and many others. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 15:36, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Brilliant, thank you. Both those references meet the criteria for establishing notability. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 12:52, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw As nominator I withdraw my nomination of this article for deletion. The references provided by anon above satisfies the criteria for establishing notability. It would be great to see those references added to the article. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 12:52, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

HighKing, I did the work that you were unable to do of finding sources, so how about a bit of collaborative editing from you to add them to the article? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:15, 9 September 2017 (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.