Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bannari Amman Group


 * 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. With the added sources, there's no clear consensus to delete. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:08, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Bannari Amman Group

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Poorly written stub without references, and with unclear notability. This article was previously PRODed based on WP:GNG; however, it was deproded with edit summary "notable, listed on stock exchange". However, listing on stock exchange is not enough to establish notability. Beagel (talk) 08:43, 24 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  —Beagel (talk) 08:43, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  —Beagel (talk) 08:43, 24 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment - A very poorly written stub article indeed. But appears to be a big company, so is likely to be quite notable in India. I would ask for comment on WP:IN MakeSense64 (talk) 15:11, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Needs improvement not deletion. A major business group of South India. Shyamsunder (talk) 19:40, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 31 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep and improve. While this article is poorly written, the subject is quite notable, with about 250000 Google hits. Miguel AG (talk) 08:47, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Note - Please avoid using this argument in an AfD as per WP:ATA. Eduemoni↑talk↓  18:54, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

<hr style="width:55%;" />
 * Delete. While I agree that the company is notable enough, the article is in such poor shape that it is better to just delete and recreate it, rather than keep it like this.--Atlan (talk) 10:09, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:36, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

<hr style="width:55%;" />
 * Relisting comment. Atlan, unfortunately your WP:TNT argument is not a valid though I sympathize with your sentiment. My own google news search finds 41 hits, some of which look like supersources but may also be press releases. This one needs more discussion. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:40, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's just that I expect that if the article is kept, it will remain in its awful state because no one is editing it. I'd rather see it gone than have it like it is.--Atlan (talk) 11:52, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - This article is a copyright violation, it is straight ahead copied from Bannari Amman Group website, violating also MIRROR and content replication policies, also we don't need another non notable yet Indian advertisement on WP. <b style="background:#FEE;padding:5px;font-size:10px"><b style="color:#913">Ed</b><b style="color:#C13">ue</b><b style="color:#D35">mo</b><b style="color:#E57">ni</b><sup style='color:green'>↑talk↓ </b> 18:52, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete no third party sourcesCurb Chain (talk) 12:06, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Loads of independent sources demonstrate this is a very large business entity, with fingers in many pies. I've applied several sources to the page. The Hindu, The Economic Times, and BioSpectrumIndia all pass the bar for independence and the first two are certainly regarded as reliable. One of the reasons the company is newsworthy is because it created a 4,000 student college facility, as shown by two of the sources. More significant coverage on this can be seen by searching for the company name at this link, but the article isn't available to view. Clearly meets WP:GNG and WP:ORG. BusterD (talk) 22:01, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. I'd encourage all participants to give these sources I've applied a look. I've added a significant article from Reuters and more from The Hindu. Only one of the eight sources is shaky. The rest are from diverse independent news organs, albeit the business sections. Only ordinary editing remains to clean this up. BusterD (talk) 22:33, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep, if a bit weak. While a few of those new sources appear to be reprinted press releases or near enough, there are enough that aren't that I think there's a GNG argument. --joe deckertalk to me 02:08, 15 August 2011 (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.