Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ICICI Securities


 * 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.  Sandstein  08:57, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

ICICI Securities

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Does not meet WP:NCORP: all sources are company profiles and WP:ROUTINE coverage. A BEFORE search turned up plenty of news mentions, but all of the news I found was routine ("such-and-such business partnered with ICICI" or "ICICI bought so-and-so"). General promotional/"about us" feeling to the article, but not enough to merit G11. creffett (talk) 00:35, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. creffett (talk) 00:35, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. creffett (talk) 00:35, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. creffett (talk) 00:35, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. creffett (talk) 00:35, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep - It is among the largest brokerage companies in India. and as such qualifies for a WP:BRANCH from its parent company (ICICI Bank). Tayi Arajakate  Talk 12:54, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep: as said, it is one of the largest brokerage companies in India, as well as that, it has articles about it in multiple credible newspapers including Bloomberg and CNBC. It is currently selling shares on the stock market and, as Tayi said, is owned by a multi-billion dollar company, ICICI Bank as well as being one itself .  Bᴇʀʀᴇʟʏ  • Talk to me∕What have I been doing 19:05, 14 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Strong delete, all the references provided the keep voters are BS trival mentions to make it seem notable by citation bombing and false claims of notability by association. Seriously, website that is nothing but a stock listing isnt valid for notability. It doesnt matter if they are listed on a stock exchange how big of firm they are.The only thing that establishes notability is in-depth coverage in reliable sources. Which this company doesnt have. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:45, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
 * A firm of this size would almost always have in-depth coverage, a simple google search would show you as much which seems you weren't bothered to do before declaring it has no such coverage. For instance here's a company profile from Business Standard and here's a list of regular significant coverage from Reuters. Tayi Arajakate  Talk 10:18, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Actually I did, but nothing came up. Thanks though. As far the business profile goes, that's rutine coverage that is just a glorified press release. The routers coverage is the same exact crap that's not notable as the other sources are. Its pretty laughable to call three articles about trivial topics sigficant regular coverage. Nice try though. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:40, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I doubt you have even clicked on the links let alone do a google search. If you were to click on them, you would find there's more than three articles which you have mentioned. The primary subject of the articles are the company or its related activities and are more exhaustive than a simple press release. Tayi Arajakate  Talk 12:28, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Good for you. I don't give two craps about your opinion though. I put plenty of time into researching things. That said, this is a volunteer effort. As such, we do as little or as much as we can and it's pretty rude of you to call out other users just because you think they didn't look into things enough. It seems like every time an AfD about an Indian company comes up someone with your kind of bad attitude goes off on the people doing the AfD. They always do the same citation bombing of utterly trash sources you did and then get a massive attitude when their sources are rejected for being trash. The whole thing is pretty tiresome. It's not our job to spend endless amounts of time digging through your garbage sources or looking through Google endlessly to find the perfect, none existent article just to satisfy un-appreciative people like you. It is on you to make sure the articles you recommend actually satisfy notability criteria though. If you don't know them, fine learn them then, but don't attack me because your sources don't qualify. Waste your own damn time digging through Google News. Your the one going off about how the company is notable. So either spend time proving it or move the hell on. Sometime things aren't notable. That's life. Don't badger users about it though, because your wasting our time with it. It's not going to keep the article from being deleted if it's not notable. I'm sure as hell not changing my vote because due to your attitude. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:48, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry but if you miss a basic observation that would be apparent from even glancing at the sources, you will be called out for it. As you say, it is volunteer work and if you find it tiring then you should probably not participate? I've'nt dragged you here or even pinged you to reply. But if you are going to participate then you should pay attention to the specific subject instead of working on presumptions and then going off on a rant. Tayi Arajakate Talk 15:02, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Except I said I did multiple times. Oterwise I wouldnt have known the coverage was trivial. You clearly either didnt read what I wrote or just dont care because it doesnt fot your narative. As I said already, the coverage in the actual damn articles, ALL OF WHICH I READ THROUGH, doesnt establish notability because they are GARBAGE SOURCES! Hopefully that's clear enough for you. Now piss the hell off and go harrase someone else. I'm not repeating myself again about it and I'm done dealing with your beniel, petulent attitude. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:52, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I would highly recommend not participating if you're going to get this angry over nothing. It does not seem like it is my attitude which is the problem here. Tayi Arajakate  Talk 23:16, 15 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete. WP:ROUTINE coverage of a non-notable company. Dorama285 (talk) 21:02, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete Topic can be adequately covered in the ICICI Bank article. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 08:25, 22 March 2020 (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.