Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Borg Energy


 * 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. Spot checking a bunch of the references, it appears that most of them are indeed trivially reworded versions of the same press release. -- RoySmith (talk) 05:29, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Borg Energy

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable company. The company have published a press release, picked up and published by several different publications in India, regarding plans to invest in a large-scale solar power project in India. All citations provided appear to echo this same press release (note the similarity of wording of all cited stories). Further, the single story (in its multiple copies and echoes) does not verify any of the facts in the article which it is being used to cite. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 16:14, 3 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep - A solar power company that targets solar units at 40,000 homes across India is notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Henry9967 (talk • contribs) 16:26, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment Only if noted by independent sources, which these press releases do not appear to be. And targeting 40,000 homes is a lot different than delivering to 40,000 homes.  Perhaps after they've actually successfully executed, the story might change.  WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 16:43, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I did not cite the press release by the company. I cited sources from Business Standard, Financial Express, CNN-IBN, Zee News, The Hindu, Renewable energy technology which may not be the echo of the press release by the company. Those are independent top news publishers in India. If you do a search then you will find the company already started their projects in Indian state of Andhra Pradesh, Chennai with the Power Grid Corporation of India where the scheme is implemented by the Indian District Rural Development Agency (DRDA) with the consent of the Archeological Survey of India (ASI). Now, I assume India's Govt. is not that fool to join hands with an energy company without judging their capability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Henry9967 (talk • contribs) 17:17, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Definitely keep... Come on! Not to mention how greatly this article has been sourced, especially for a 2 days old article. OccultZone (talk) 17:41, 3 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep - Passes WP:CORPDEPTH. Source examples include:
 * The Times of India
 * The Hindu
 * The Times of India
 * The Hindu
 * Business Standard
 * – Northamerica1000(talk) 01:20, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:23, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:23, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:23, 5 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete as lacking in-depth coverage in independent third-party sources. Rehashed press releases do not count as independent in depth coverage. If such sources are added to the article, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:53, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I doubt if you really took time to actually read the sources. All the sources are independent of the subject, reliable and covers the topic in-depth. Please, let me know which sources you are pointing to as unreliable. Thank you,Henry9967 (talk) 05:23, 10 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:33, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

 Keep per GNG and WP:ORG. References are independent of the subject.Iniciativass (talk) 15:27, 10 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep per substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Candleabracadabra (talk) 04:43, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment When "independent news sources" contain phrases such as
 * The BORG Astra Plus Home Series is ideally suited to convert house roof top into a micro solar power plant. Customers can now experience and purchase the BORG Astra Plus Home Series micro solar power plants from the exclusive BORG Power Play showrooms.
 * or
 * BORG's Care Centres cater to installation and after sales services, ensuring that all service enquiries are addressed within 24 hours. Committed to making alternative green power a way of life, The BORG Astra Plus Home Series Range is a one stop solution to all household power woes.
 * or when four of the "independent" sources (,, and ) list the same headline and the same or very similar text
 * one must question the independence of such sources and conclude that these are essentially press releases and advertorials place by BORG. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 15:28, 11 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I see why you see them as press-releases but your conclusion may be wrong. The 4 links you pointed out(,, and ) are not press-release by BORG but published by the most reputed and largest news agency in India, Press Trust of India which has no history of publishing promotional materials for a company/promoting a company. Besides, I have included several other references from national news sources which subtentially covers the topic and their business in power-hungry states of India. Also, they have been featured in local TV news for alternate energy solutions. This is another source, which have not been included in the article.Henry9967 (talk) 16:13, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment Regarding Henry's latest statement: if multiple citations are really just echoes of the same PTI release, then we should really only cite one of them (citing the same release in multiple publications gives a false sense of the significance of the coverage). Whether or not the PTI coverage can be considered significant and independent, given that it is merely the report of an announcement by the company's local representative, is debatable.  WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 16:59, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment Okay, I present now Borg Energy installs solar-wind hybrid power system at Vellore Fort, Borg to ease energy crisis and [BORG Energy Private Ltd enters Andhra Pradesh http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/business/india-business/BORG-Energy-Private-Ltd-enters-Andhra-Pradesh/articleshow/22097498.cms] to support my claim of notability. Please, comment. Thanks,Henry9967 (talk) 17:42, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Plus BORG Energy opens solar power solutions store in Hyderabad from the Hindu daily newspaper and Will Borg Energy change the state of Indian Power situation also Solar energy for a better tomorrow?. Regards.Henry9967 (talk) 17:56, 11 February 2014 (UTC)


 * According to the article this is a company with a worldwide presence, with the HQ in Texas, but yet all of the sources appear to cover Borg investing $45M USD in India, or that they are unveiling a new product range for sale in India. Most of the sources also read like they were based on a press release, saying little about the company outside the event covered. For me this isn't in-depth coverage and also tells me that this company is likely to be non-notable (along with millions of other companies) so unfortunately I have to say delete for now. Bjelleklang -  talk 19:11, 20 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I am updating my opinion to Delete. I think it is too soon. A project is anounced, but otherwise there is no coverage in reliable independent sources. Very little information to write what this company is, how it's structured, who's in charge of it. Let's see what develops and revisit a year or two from now. if in fact it becomes established we can recreate with proper sources. Candleabracadabra (talk) 01:28, 21 February 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.