Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HealthCare Global Enterprises Ltd (HCG)


 * 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. There are simply too few reliable sources, so the subject fails WP:GNG. Katietalk 23:18, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

HealthCare Global Enterprises Ltd (HCG)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Contested PROD. Non-notable, fails WP:CORP JMHamo (talk) 00:58, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. On very day of the company's successful (oversubscribed) Initial public offering, with multiple articles about it in many sources over recent days!  It was helpfully started as a stub by someone who noticed the omission in Wikipedia;  they should be thanked not slammed by an AFD.
 * What efforts in wp:BEFORE were performed? Nomination does not state any efforts or explain why topic is "non-notable", could be based on just the fact that it is a stub article with only 2 reliable sources so far?
 * Here is article in The Economic Times (the 2nd biggest business newspaper in the world, behind Wall Street Journal). Note one crore rupees is 10,000,000 rupees (rs) is about 150,000 U.S. dollars.  The IPO yielded Rs 292 crore in pre-sales round to "anchor investors", then Rs 650 crore in the main IPO.  That is $141,300,000 U.S. dollars, which is above what i saw elsewhere was the median size out of the 350 IPOs in U.S. in part or all of 2013: $100 million. This study of 2015 IPOs in U.S. reports 275 IPOs raising $85.3 billion so mean is $310 million, but that includes Alibaba's record IPO and 15 others > $1 billion.  Any way you look at it, being >$100 million is pretty big!
 * Search in Scholar (with search term modified sensibly to "HealthCare Global Enterprises" rather than the whole string) yields, for one: "Corporate Presence in the Health care Sector in India" by Indira Chakravarthi, Social Medicine, Volume 5, Number 4, December 2010, which lists it among private companies, giving "xvix. Healthcare Global Enterprises Ltd (HCG), a chain of cancer hospitals with equity investments by IDFC Private Equity, Evolence India Life Sciences Fund and PremjiInvest, had 17 cancer treatment centers across the country in 2009 and was planning to expand to 40 centers with an investment of Rs 400 crores by 2012 (Business Line August 29 2009)."


 * -- do ncr  am  04:50, 20 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep - Notability established by cited sources and new source provided by . ~Kvng (talk) 13:03, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 * this is 2016. Any idea what may have occurred in the last 4 years?  DGG ( talk ) 20:05, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
 * No, but notability is not temporary. ~Kvng (talk) 22:27, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * (WP:NTEMP). North America1000 11:36, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:12, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete at best and Draft if anyone needs it because simply none of this is convincing to simply keep for assumed notability and improvements. SwisterTwister   talk  05:40, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment Please clarify what you mean by "assumed notability". Also, note that topic notability is not based upon whether articles are improved or not. For example, see WP:NOEFFORT. North America1000 15:10, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep Per the reasoning and sources provided above. AusLondonder (talk) 01:59, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 11:38, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak delete: I looked long and hard at this subject. Guidelines call for 3-5 independent and reliable sources with comprehensive coverage of the subject, so I'm confused about why people are voting 'keep' based on the two existing sources, the size of the company, or the amount their IPO brings in.  These don't establish notability.  Surely there is more out there if this company is notable? I found this and I thought "Oh, I may vote keep!" until I realized it might just be a press release ("ET Bureau" in the by-line) and it's primarily a quote from HCG anyway (primary source, not comprehensive coverage).  I found a LOT of articles available on them, certainly, but the entire lot was either just coverage of one event (Their IPO) or a VERY LONG list of press releases. Chrisw80 (talk) 06:21, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. We should not have an article whose documentation is limited to the IPO. Companies are notable for what they do, and that's what has to be shown to be notable.  DGG ( talk ) 23:27, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage, beyond the routine coverage of their ipo, to show they pass either WP:GNG or WP:CORPDEPTH.  Onel 5969  TT me 20:09, 12 April 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.