Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bahwan CyberTek (2nd nomination)


 * 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 delete. Although several participants argue for salting, I don't yet see a pattern of repeated re-creation making this necessary. Randykitty (talk) 16:33, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Bahwan CyberTek
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Unbelievably kept in 2012 but, then, again, the comments were naturally of "The major newspapers are enough" or "This is enough for significance", but we all know that's not the case now, not only because of the mass advertising, but because of the sheer fact we cannot confide in these publications to not publish such advertising, everything else is literally all advertising, either firsthand or secondhand. At best, not only considering this, but the fact a past deletion was for G12, Delete and Salt would be best, given that past experiences show this will only be restarted and we'll be back at AfD once again, with another or the same advertising user (in the case of this article advertising-only accounts are obvious). SwisterTwister  talk  21:07, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:26, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:27, 20 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete as corporate spam: management directory + office locator, with nothing else present in the article. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:27, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. (andsalt). Directory listing.  DGG ( talk ) 00:31, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete: I have added a couple of references, one from the previous AfD. Visible coverage shows the firm operating in Indian municipal government, in Dubai , in joint-venture call centres, etc. These passing announcements are sufficient to verify that it is a firm going about its business (despite the paucity of references), but I am not seeing substantial coverage which can demonstrate encyclopaedic notability. AllyD (talk) 19:01, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete and salt - per WP:NOTDIR and per nom Spiderone  14:25, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Nomination has no WP:DEL-REASON, includes no wikilinks, and could have been speedy closed as having no argument for deletion. Arguments to change WP:NOT belong at WT:NOT, and a WP:RANT violates WP:SOAPBOX.  Here is the applicable policy text for WP:NOTDIR:
 * {| style="background:#DDFFFF"


 * Wikipedia is not a directory
 * Wikipedia is not a directory
 * Wikipedia is not a directory

Wikipedia encompasses many lists of links to articles within Wikipedia that are used for internal organization or to describe a notable subject. In that sense, Wikipedia functions as an index or directory of its own content. However, Wikipedia is not a directory of everything in the universe that exists or has existed. Please see Alternative outlets for alternatives. Wikipedia articles are not:
 * 1) Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics such as (but not limited to) quotations, aphorisms, or persons (real or fictional). If you want to enter lists of quotations, put them into our sister project Wikiquote. Of course, there is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are relevant because they are associated with or significantly contribute to the list topic. Wikipedia also includes reference tables and tabular information for quick reference. Merged groups of small articles based on a core topic are permitted. (See Stand-alone lists for clarification.)
 * 2) Genealogical entries. Family histories should be presented only where appropriate to support the reader's understanding of a notable topic.
 * 3) The White or Yellow Pages. Contact information such as phone numbers, fax numbers and e-mail addresses is not encyclopedic. Likewise, disambiguation pages (such as John Smith) are not intended to be complete listings of every person in the world named John Smith&mdash;just the notable ones.
 * 4) Directories, directory entries, electronic program guide, or a resource for conducting business. For example, an article on a broadcaster should not list upcoming events, current promotions, current schedules, format clocks, etc., although mention of major events, promotions or historically significant program lists and schedules may be acceptable. Likewise an article on a business should not contain a list of all the company's patent filings. Furthermore, the Talk pages associated with an article are for talking about the article, not for conducting the business of the topic of the article.
 * 5) Sales catalogues. An article should not include product pricing or availability information unless there is an independent  source and a justified reason for the mention. Encyclopedic significance may be indicated if mainstream media sources (not just product reviews) provide commentary on these details instead of just passing mention. Prices and product availability can vary widely from place to place and over time. Wikipedia is not a price comparison service to compare the prices of competing products, or the prices and availability of a single product from different vendors or retailers.
 * 6) Non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations, such as "people from ethnic / cultural / religious group X employed by organization Y" or "restaurants specializing in food type X in city Y". Cross-categories like these are not considered sufficient basis to create an article, unless the intersection of those categories is in some way a culturally significant phenomenon. See also Overcategorization for this issue in categories.
 * 7) Simple listings without context information. Examples include, but are not limited to: listings of business alliances, clients, competitors, employees (except CEOs, supervisory directors and similar top functionaries), equipment, estates, offices, products and services, sponsors, subdivisions and tourist attractions. Information about relevant single entries with encyclopedic information should be added as sourced prose. Lists of creative works in a wider context are permitted.
 * }
 * Unscintillating (talk) 22:00, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Delete and salt - Per nom.Fails WP:NOTDIR. Aru@baska ❯❯❯ Vanguard 10:40, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep as per DGG in the first AfD For context, here is the version of the article as edited by DGG.  "Keep The references are fully sufficient to show notability, They include article from the major English -language Indian newspapers , articles that are substantially about the subject. (The ones just mentioned would be in addition to that, but the article can stand even without them. It's time people actually looked at the article history before nominating, as they're supposed to, instead of judging by the state the article happens to be in. DGG ( talk ) 04:58, 2 March 2012 (UTC) "  Further review shows that the topic started in 1999 and is getting attention in Google books, which confirms the first AfD.  Unscintillating (talk) 22:00, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. My standards have gotten higher, in line with the general improvement of WP. I did not realize 3 years ago the low reliability of Indian press coverage.  DGG ( talk ) 18:34, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * So a company started by a woman (or family) in the Emirate of Oman, with their headquarters in India, getting in the legal news in the US for hiring program engineers in Massachusetts, and involving themselves in bidding in Ukraine, with annual revenues of 100 to 250 million US dollars, and 2000 employees, are a matter of generally-flawed Indian press, with no specific press problems identified? Please compare with your previous !vote in this AfD, which is also awaiting a response.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:42, 4 December 2016 (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.