Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anabond Limited


 * 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 -- JForget  23:01, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Anabond Limited

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Adhesives company in India has a few hits in business publications. Adhesives companies aren't rare; in this Thomas Register listing, there are 5,194 adhesives suppliers in the US and Canada. There must be many more in the rest of the world. Anyway, the sourcing for this article doesn't show notability in my opinion, so I would like to know the Wikipedia community's opinion. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 06:24, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, no showing of notability for this particular business. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 13:41, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.   -- Fabrictramp (talk) 01:08, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.   -- Fabrictramp (talk) 01:08, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. What makes this company notable, I think, is that it is the first company in India to manufacture anaerobic adhesives, which become active and cure or polymerize in the absence of oxygen, according to a competitor's website. I added two of the references that the nominator found. I'm surprised there aren't more, though. --Eastmain (talk) 03:33, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * ...In India... Phlegm Rooster (talk) 04:35, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 15:02, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bigtimepeace | talk |  contribs 00:04, 13 May 2008 (UTC) --Bigtimepeace | talk |  contribs 00:04, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep per User:Eastmain and his adding of references. Also, I can't understand your comment "...In India...", User:Fabrictramp. --Do you know me?...then SHUT UP!!! Sarcasm is beauty 00:16, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, it should be moved afterwards to Anabond Ltd. per NC. --Do you know me?...then SHUT UP!!!Sarcasm is beauty 00:21, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The 'In India' comment I think is meant to say that it's the first company using the manufacturing technique in India - not the first company to use the manufacturing process. Thus any notability is diminished from, say, a company that is recognized in multiple sources as innovating a new technique world-wide.  Substitute any other country for "India," (United States, say, or Burma,) and then ask yourself if it still reads as being notable. 98.215.48.213 (talk) 12:00, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong keep - Per Eastmain.  a s e nine  say what?  08:00, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment The second reference in the article, as currently listed, has been deleted at its' source. Per WP:CORP, "A company, corporation, organization, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject. The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered."  Are there enough references in depth in the article to justify notability?  I don't see it, myself. 98.215.48.213 (talk) 11:56, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. As there are no reliable sources cited, I am persuaded that the article does not comply with the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 19:03, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * In response to a request on my talk page, I am returning to confirm this opinion. As the IP above me mentions, one of the sources cannot be checked, and I am not at all convinced that either are, or were, reliable. Stifle (talk) 08:08, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - there are insufficient sources. Bearian (talk) 14:14, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak keep - I have added a further source, moved it to a better page {no need to disambiguate with Ltd}, and cleaned it up. Notability is still wafer thin, however. I have had a look at the website of Chemical Week, BTW, and see no reason why it should not be considered a reliable source. TerriersFan (talk) 17:50, 22 May 2008 (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.