Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cigniti Technologies


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. The keep arguments hinge on sources currently in the article - that have been convincingly challenged here - and the supposition that this company's profile is such that more coverage will be forthcoming, which is an IAR argument that hasn't gotten enough support to achieve consensus. Vanamonde (Talk) 12:13, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Cigniti Technologies

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Disputed draftification of a company that fails WP:NCORP. References are brief mentions, routine announcements, churnalism, or otherwise fail WP:CORPDEPTH. CNMall41 (talk) 21:00, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology,  and India. CNMall41 (talk) 21:01, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Telangana-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:54, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep: agree with nom that coverage is mostly churnalism. But at some point, quantity starts making up for lack of depth, and we have a lot of shallow coverage by major news outlets. And as with other companies publicly traded on a major exchange, news coverage will undoubtedly continue to flow. Owen&times; &#9742;  22:29, 4 December 2023 (UTC) recent coverage further establishes notability. Owen&times;  &#9742;  18:25, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
 * , Publicly traded companies are not inherently notable. WP:CORPDEPTH applies and this doesn't meet it. The reference you show is a press release. Are you saying that a press release meets the requirements of ORGCRIT to show notability? --CNMall41 (talk) 18:43, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Press releases do not meet the requirements of ORGCRIT to show notability, of course. They can, however, establish verifiability for a certain status or event they describe, as is the case here. This, in turn, adds to other references in establishing notability. The assessment covered by the press release is one recognized by Big Four members, which suggests it isn't some mail-order prize as is often the case. As for being publicly traded on a major exchange, WP:LISTED tells us that sufficient independent sources almost always exist for such companies, which was my point: we are pretty much guaranteed to get more news coverage for this company, and it seems wasteful to delete and recreate the article based on the ebb and flow of news about it. Owen&times; &#9742;  20:45, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Verification of something on a page and establishing notability are not the same. We are in agreement that press releases do not establish notability so it doesn't matter if there are 10,000 of them about this company, they would not count. LISTED also says "consensus has been that notability is not automatic in this (or any other) case" (about being notable for being publicly traded). So yes, they may have coverage in the future meeting ORGCRIT, but they do not currently. The argument you seem to be making is that it is WP:TOOSOON. And, I agree with your argument. But we do not keep pages around in hopes that they will eventually meet notability guidelines. --CNMall41 (talk) 08:18, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you,, but I can assure you that after 19 years on the project, I do not need a lecture about the difference between verifiability and notability, especially seeing as I highlighted the difference myself in my reply to you. My point, which I thought was spelled out clearly enough, is that I believe being recognized in an international assessment such as the IDC MarketScape as a global leader is, ipso facto, evidence of notability. There is no WP:TOOSOON involved; the report came out two weeks ago.
 * We can certainly debate how significant or in-depth coverage of this report was. I believe the report, along with ongoing coverage in leading media, is enough to pass our usual threshold of notability. But as I pointed out re: WP:LISTED, if this article is deleted, we'll simply end up here again in AfD/Cigniti Technologies (2nd nomination) the next time the company receives global recognition or wins an international award, which I don't consider to be a productive use of our editorial time on the project. WP:LISTED doesn't tell us that a company traded on a major exchange is automatically notable, but it does warn us that removing articles about such companies is usually a waste of time. I find your approach of delete-now-and-predictably-recreate-when-more-notable to be counterproductive. Owen&times; &#9742;  12:48, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Not sure why the contentiousness. You may not agree with my rationale for deletion, but I will assume you understand WP:AGF. Saying you have been here 19 years is a fallacy from authority as your !vote isn't weighted by how long you have been registered as an editor. Anyway, I am wondering why you linked to a Forbes reference that falls under WP:FORBESCON which clearly cannot be used to establish notability for companies. The report you referenced mentions Cigniti along with dozens of others so it doesn't meet WP:CORPDEPTH. Also, why would we wind up at a second deletion discussion? Once the company is notable under Wikipedia guidelines (assuming it does become notable), there should be no need for another discussion. At this point, we can agree to disagree but I have never seen a company kept at AfD with the bar this page sets. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:31, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't see any argument from authority in my reply to you. What I said was that after 19 years of working on the project, you can safely assume I know the difference between verifiability and notability, especially after I mentioned the difference myself. You talking down to me as if this were my first AfD seems out of place.
 * As for your question, why would we wind up at a second deletion discussion?, the answer is likely: because you'll nominate it again. Your personal standards of notability,, seem distinctly higher than the general norm. And since coverage of publicly listed companies keeps flowing, it is a safe bet that this article will get recreated sooner or later, and we'll have the pleasure of going through this all over again.
 * I'm not sure what you mean by, we can agree to disagree. I'm here to discuss and--with any luck--reach a consensus. I am not here to state my unwavering opinion, dig my heels in, and parry every opposing view by quoting a wikipolicy of varrying relevance. Tell me, CNMall41, when was the last time you changed your !vote on an AfD after seeing the views of other participants, or worked to reach some kind of compromise? Owen&times; &#9742;  13:10, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I do not see how I am talking down to you so sorry you feel that way. If that is the case, I would encourage you to take concerns to ANI as I do not want to be someone who violates guidelines in order to keep others from enjoying Wikipedia. As far as changing my !vote(s) (which I have no idea what that has to do with the notability of this company), I will do you one better. I actually requested deletion of pages I created early on in my editing here, after gaining experience and learning where the community leans on interpretation of WP:NCORP. So, I am not "quoting a wikipolicy of varrying relevance" and instead pointing to the relevant guidelines as the reasoning for my deletion recommendation as I have learned through many AfD discussions on companies. As far as me recommending it for deletion a second time, I still do not understand your reasoning. Again, if it eventually becomes notable as you are saying, then there would be no reason for a second AfD (it would be disruptive in fact). I am discussing the current notability in the current discussion. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:35, 21 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete No in depth coverage. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:54, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete. No number of shallow, churnalist articles can add up to CORPDEPTH.
 * JoelleJay (talk) 00:33, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:26, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep Agree with OwenX. The company is traded on a major exchanges of India. And it has news coverage from reliable news outlets. B-Factor (talk) 05:41, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi,, I see you have few edits on Wikipedia so not sure if you are familiar with guidelines related to companies. Can you point out where notability comes from being a publicly traded company? Also, having "news coverage from reliable sources" is good, but they have to meet WP:ORGCRIT. Can you point out which references meet that criteria? --CNMall41 (talk) 05:27, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:32, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom lacks indepth coverage fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:10, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Delete: per nom. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:CORPDEPTH. Charlie (talk) 17:47, 23 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep A listed company on Indian national Stock exchange having various references on reliable websites. Passes WP:GNG. Dalai60 (talk) 12:16, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi, Dalai60, I realize you are the article creator with only a handful of edits to Wikipedia so wanted to point out the relevant guideline for notability. Companies listed on major stock exchanges are not inherently notable. They must have significant coverage that meets WP:ORGCRIT. Can you point out the WP:THREE you believe meets that criteria? --CNMall41 (talk) 02:31, 26 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete, the independent references do not include significant coverage and therefore fail GNG in my opinion. Daniel (talk) 22:10, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep Per Owenx and Dalai60. Tooncool64 (talk) 02:32, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, Thanks for the !vote. I will pose the same question to you I asked the page creator since you have very few edits as well. What WP:THREE sources meet WP:ORGCRIT to show notability? Also, it is helpful to provide content to your vote per WP:PERX. --CNMall41 (talk) 02:53, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Citations 3, 5, and 8 demonstrate notability as a rising company in the Indian Stock Market. I agree that there is not much information available about the company currently, but I still feel as its enough to create an article. Tooncool64 (talk) 03:01, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
 * You are correct, there is not much information available. So how does it meet notability guidelines? None of the references you mentioned meet WP:ORGCRIT. In fact, one is a press release. --CNMall41 (talk) 03:08, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I believe it does, and no, I will not elaborate. Tooncool64 (talk) 03:13, 26 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete: No WP:ORGCRIT in English and Telugu google. Only announcements such as the company getting a rs 80 crore contract. Nothing to qualify as SIGCOV. बिनोद थारू (talk) 03:09, 27 December 2023 (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.