Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bird 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   delete. nothing precludes a neutral article Spartaz Humbug! 03:24, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Bird Group

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Might be a notable subject, but article is nothing but spam. Several attempts were made to trim it, but the same two editors (possibly same person) revert. Both editors working only on this and related articles, so conflict of interest suspected. Speedy was declined without reason given. Most of claims are uncited. Peacock terms used throughout. Dmol (talk) 22:30, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note- the present version shows some references, but these are being removed by same editor.--Dmol (talk) 22:49, 21 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:02, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:02, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete No independent coverage in secondary sources. Only reprints of PR handouts. And the editing pattern indicates someone from the PR department is trying to create a corporate profile here.--Sodabottle (talk) 04:40, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Yet another article that fails for vagueness and promotional style, a privately-held conglomerate of independent companies with interests in travel technology, education, aviation and travel related services.  References are to press releases announcing routine deals, and I find nothing better among the many hits for several different "Bird Groups". - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:36, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:CORP and looks like spam. Rabbabodrool (talk) 16:47, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep This is a major company in business since 1971. Improvements could be made to create an editorial writing style more conducive to the encyclopedic nature of Wikipedia. --Warrior777 17:01, 22 December 2010 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Warrior777 (talk • contribs)
 * Reply- I listed it because it is spam, not that it might not be notable. The "improvements" you suggest have been made several times, but are constantly reverted by one particular user who I have given a 3RR warning. Please see the history of the article and the wording of my original nomination.--Dmol (talk) 20:39, 22 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. Has received loads of coverage in independent reliable sources: . Books from major publishers say it is a "key distribution company" (John Wiley and Sons), "one of the largest groups in travel and IT arena" (Tata McGraw-Hill) and "a leading hospitality chain" (John Wiley and Sons). Blue-chip news sources have published articles about the company's restructuring (Livemint), aviation plans (Daily News & Analysis), hotel investments (The Financial Express) and much more. If there are problems with contributors making inappropriate edits then they can be fixed in the normal way by discussion and, if that doesn't work, blocking and/or (semi-)protection. Deletion is not a method of solving content disputes. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:47, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Everything cited above is exactly the sort of routine stuff WP:CORP anticipates:


 * "Notable" is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance"...The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability...Deep coverage provides an organization with a level of attention that extends well beyond routine announcements and makes it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about an organization.


 * Based on third-party sources, the broadest coverage this article could ever offer would read something like: "The B.G. has interests in X, Y, and Z, employing N people in M offices. It is an authorized agent for airlines A1, A2, ... An, and has been called "this" and "that" in one-sentence (or sentence-fragment) references in books on Indian economic expansion. In 2007 it announced plans to Do Something and Expand Somewhere.  In 2008 Livemint reported that a 'Bird Group's' mining operations might close, although this doesn't appear to be the same B.G., being described by Livemint as 'the government-owned Bird Group of Companies, which consists of seven mining subsidiaries.' "  However, if this is the same B.G., and the article survives deletion, then it should certainly mention that Bird Group was being "investigated for a theft over iron ore."  EEng (talk) 14:39, 24 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete as per nom..-- ...Captain...... Tälk tö me   11:09, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

we have taken note of the comments and have attempted to rectify the text to remove all kinds of promotional messages. we have also included a list of references which are not PR drafts but independent articles that have appeared in the media on Bird Group's ventures. please have a look once again and re-consider this page for un-deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pkmishra264 (talk • contribs) 09:10, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The material you've added back is still just copy-paste from corporate websites and press releases. The news "stories" are also simply press releases with no analysis whatsoever, plus a two-question "interview."  At least one cited source doesn't appear to contain the word "Bird."  The material is being removed again.  And who's this "we"?  Please stop wasting our time.  Let someone else write about your company. WP:COI  EEng (talk) 16:52, 27 December 2010 (UTC) P.S.  Is this the same Bird Group that was accused of theft of iron ore?  If so, the article should certainly contain details on that.  Were any corporate officers fined or jailed?  Any fines levied?
 * 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.