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 no consensus. No consensus to delete - current article is significantly less promotional that previous attempts, and appears to meet WP:NCORP right now (non-admin closure) ES&L 11:54, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

V Star Creations (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)

3 Speedy Warrants have already been rewarded to this article V_Star_Creations_Pvt_Ltd, Contributor of this article requested an undeletion and got rejected Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion#V_Star_Creations_Pvt_Ltd. Once again the author created this article. P.s: This article is highly unsourced and not at all a notable company. Foodie (talk) 07:08, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:33, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:33, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The earlier articles were written in highly promotional language. This time around, the author finally got the message and posted a text that, with a little tweaking, became neutral. As for WP:N, I don't have time at the moment to compose content, but see what you all think of this collection of articles describing V Star's stand against the practice of nokku kooli.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7] —Largo Plazo (talk) 11:45, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I have read each of these. They each appear to refer to a single news item about an industrial dispute. That dispute neither adds to nor removes any notability from the corporation in my view, since the incident is peripheral to the company's business. I see the most reliable source as being valid to add to the article as a matter of interest, but not as a matter of notability. Adding all of them would smack of WP:BOMBARD and would create some sort of faux environment purporting to enhance notability where none in enhanced. Your mileage may vary, of course. Fiddle Faddle 18:19, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply I get your point, but I don't think the source of notability for a company needs to be limited to its lines of business, just as a person can be notable for having done something that doesn't relate to what he happens to do for a living. In this situation, I'd make a case that it is related: Within the context of corrupt government/union collusion to extort money from businesses in Kerala, when they pulled that stunt on this one business, its owner stood on principle and defied the nefarious forces in a public way that made an impression. And it wasn't just a single act: there were new developments a year or two later. In any event, I don't have strong feelings about it, but this is the way I was looking at it. Also, this is the only potential trigger for notability that I could find. Reports that the owner donated a kidney at best could be used to argue for his notability (and indeed Wikipedia has an article on him), but not in a form inheritable by the business, even though it is mentioned incidentally in the reports. —Largo Plazo (talk) 19:02, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete based on the version of the article in place at the time of AFD. To the closing admin: If the article has significantly changed since my last edit to this AFD page, and if in your judgment the changes demonstrate notability, then disregard this !vote. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 16:50, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: See also: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/V Star Creations Pvt Ltd. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 16:54, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep based upon the single source in the article, a source which I view as passing WP:RS despite have a PR look and feel, I feel that sufficient notability has just been established for this organisation. It requires substantially more sources in order to be safeguarded for sure, but these sources must not be of the WP:BOMBARD type. The article is not a good article, and requires substantial expansion. It also appears to try to inherit notability from family members, something that is deprecated and is, ultimately, pointless. Fiddle Faddle 17:14, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Question Am I incorrect in my understanding that if a topic does meet notability standards, it does even before the article has been properly sourced to reflect this? I was feeling that the seven links I gave here yesterday might be sufficient to satisfy folks of the business's notability for purposes of this discussion even before I get any of them into the article. —Largo Plazo (talk) 17:26, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  You are correct, notability either exists or it doesn't exist, independent of what is in the article. However, an article can "fail AFD" if the article does not adequately demonstrate notability and the reviewers are unaware of credible evidence of notability. It can also fail at AFD if the reviewers believe that the best option is to WP:STARTOVER. I have not had time to look through the links above, and I may revisit my position after I do. Should this article survive, it is very important to have the article be solid enough to avoid any return trip to AFD. This means that notability is clearly demonstrated AND it isn't such a poor-quality article that editors would rather have no article than the one that is there. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 17:38, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  OK, thanks! —Largo Plazo (talk) 18:06, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Being unsourced is not a reason for deletion (given that this is not a WP:BLP matter). That previous, significantly different versions were deleted is also not a reason to delete this version, Really neither of these should be mentioned in the nomination. The issue here is notability. Timtrent you are mistaken. If a business is written about extensively, whether for industrial disputes, or unusual personnel practices, or community engagement, or any other reason, even if that reason is "peripheral to the company's business", it will still be notable. The general notability guideline doesn't say anything about a company being notable only for its core business, nor does WP:CORP. Most often a company is notable, when it is notable, for its lines of business. But that is not always true. DES ^(talk) 13:23, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:03, 3 November 2013 (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.