This is the current revision of this page, as edited by MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) at 23:38, 7 February 2023 (Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.
Revision as of 23:38, 7 February 2023 by MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) (Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12))(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)- 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. The consensus is that it meets notability. (and the current contents is not promotiiona) DGG ( talk ) 06:24, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
Mindtree
AfDs for this article:- Mindtree (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)
This article contains strong language and notions for promoting of the company "Mindtree" on wikipedia, after detailed investigation on creator of the page, the contributions made by him on Misplaced Pages seems to be only on the article Mindtree and its related content, It seems he made account on Misplaced Pages just to create the article for this company "Mindtree".
The major contributor to the article are non registered users, Doing a reverse-IP search on those IP addresses revels that, all IP addresses are from Bangalore, India, headquarter of the company. Therefore article is unethical and violates Misplaced Pages policies on promotion & advertising. This article needs to be deleted, to implement Misplaced Pages's tighter policy norms and let people know that opensource communities are for knowledge and education, not for cheap advertising & self-promotion — Preceding unsigned comment added by Science.Warrior (talk • contribs) 14:34, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
- Your argument is not relevant to the article's notability -- what do you think about the Times of India references? Shii (tock) 17:42, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
- Comment @ user: shii All the links provided as reference are weak & most of them are from company website itself. The one you talking about looks like paid advertising, with no further reviews or comments on them, Yes they have references on some websites but this does not states that any company can have a same promotional article with their self proclaimed facts and figures on Misplaced Pages, This community is for sharing knowledge, not for greedy & conspiracy minded people, we should convey this message strongly to the people. Science.Warrior (talk) 20:44, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
- I just cleaned the page up to remove the worst parts of it. You could have done that instead of nominating for deletion; this seems to be a pretty high-profile company.
- As for violating WP:SOAPBOX, that's not a reason to delete if there is material to be salvaged. Just delete the rest and warn or report the users involved (but make sure you have strong evidence). QVVERTYVS (hm?) 20:51, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:B2B. I can't find sources that would satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH. The tone of the article suggests that redlink would be an easier start for proper article if valid sources are ever found. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 18:00, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
- Strong quick keep You must be kidding. Did you even search for its notability? It has significant presence in Bombay Stock Exchange, India's main stock market (, , ). Major financial publications are covering this company (and I searched only recent news, you'd get a lot if you go back in time). A company that employs ~ 13,000 people and has major presence in share market is un-notable? Really? If you have problem with tone of the article, please go ahead and change the language. That has nothing to do with its notability.--Dwaipayan (talk) 21:22, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
- Comment i agree with user czarkoff but @Dwaipayan "13,000 employs" where you get that data from? didn't you noticed that "citation needed" tag beside that self proclaimed number? This article has been nominated 2 times before and this is the 3rd time, i can definitely feel some conspiracy going on here. Please have a look at WP:B2B, WP:PROMOTION and finally WP:BEANS. Science.Warrior (talk) 22:15, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
- I was not aware of WP:B2B. Thanks for pointing this out. I completely agree with that essay, majority of IT-company related articles are bogus. However, this particular company has notability (and that's what decides the result of AfD). For convenience in Indian source search, you can use this engine. Read, for example, this coverage or this. And you can disregard my comment about number of employees, as I do not have any source. You should delete that info from the article. Thanks.--Dwaipayan (talk) 22:42, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
- These sources are not much different from those in article: they look like mildly edited press releases. Could you provide at least two citations with at least this depth of coverage? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 07:19, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
- I did not read the article you linked (for the example of depth coverage). Instead, I present these: a case study from Harvard Business School on the company, a report from Society for Human Resource Management, page 52, a case study in Journal of Knowledge Management Practice. --Dwaipayan (talk) 13:16, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
- @ user_Dwaipayan "what are you trying to say or prove?". Misplaced Pages governance is based on its set rules made by community members, which are been clearly stated to you on above comments, with links on them and you come up with some facts and figures of your own, u look desperate. I am surely reporting the matter now to administrators. Science.Warrior (talk) 13:45, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
- LoL. Be my guest. Please go ahead and report my activity in this AfD :) And bye the way, if you are not clear about what I am trying to prove, I am trying to prove the notability of this company, which is the main question of this AfD. --Dwaipayan (talk) 14:28, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
- @ user_Dwaipayan "what are you trying to say or prove?". Misplaced Pages governance is based on its set rules made by community members, which are been clearly stated to you on above comments, with links on them and you come up with some facts and figures of your own, u look desperate. I am surely reporting the matter now to administrators. Science.Warrior (talk) 13:45, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
- I did not read the article you linked (for the example of depth coverage). Instead, I present these: a case study from Harvard Business School on the company, a report from Society for Human Resource Management, page 52, a case study in Journal of Knowledge Management Practice. --Dwaipayan (talk) 13:16, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
- These sources are not much different from those in article: they look like mildly edited press releases. Could you provide at least two citations with at least this depth of coverage? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 07:19, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
- I was not aware of WP:B2B. Thanks for pointing this out. I completely agree with that essay, majority of IT-company related articles are bogus. However, this particular company has notability (and that's what decides the result of AfD). For convenience in Indian source search, you can use this engine. Read, for example, this coverage or this. And you can disregard my comment about number of employees, as I do not have any source. You should delete that info from the article. Thanks.--Dwaipayan (talk) 22:42, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
- Strong keep – A prominent software company in India. I'm really wondering why this was brought here. —Vensatry (ping) 18:54, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
- @user-Vensatry "yes and we were also wondering why u didn't showed up till now"!, we saw your talk page history logs, which reflects immense friendship you and user-"Dwaipayan" have, i think that's where that STRONG KEEP is coming from, lol! the conspiracy theory prediction was true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Science.Warrior (talk • contribs) 20:36, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
- Ha, nice try! your rationale is just a case of "I'm so ashamed this article is on Misplaced Pages". This list is more than necessary to prove its notability. Btw, please sign your posts with ~~~~. —Vensatry (ping) 04:34, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
- I know what you are trying to do here (User:Vensatry), "you scratch mine, i scratch yours", I am so amazed how you guys come up with some random PDF files and claim them to be notable, I am not sure you are a neutral wikipedia editor or a paid employee of this "Mindtree" company? Science.Warrior (talk) 09:06, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
- Your arguments hardly make any sense. Please read WP:DEL —Vensatry (ping) 10:03, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
- Ha, nice try! your rationale is just a case of "I'm so ashamed this article is on Misplaced Pages". This list is more than necessary to prove its notability. Btw, please sign your posts with ~~~~. —Vensatry (ping) 04:34, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
- Keep. On just the merits of the article, I agree with Dwaipayan that there is coverage out there for this company to meet WP:CORP. The BSE and NSE listings don't give it automatic notability; the coverage in media sources does. On the merits of the nomination, Science.Warrior has not presented a case for the article having such deep flaws in its content that it can't be cleaned up. Editors with conflicts of interest are not prohibited from editing articles; they're discouraged to do so and encouraged to strongly source everything. The article is not hopeless spam, and COI is a situation better dealt with by cleanup than deletion. —C.Fred (talk) 17:10, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
- Keep per Dwaipayan. Reasons stated in nomination not cause for deletion. 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 18:54, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
- 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.