Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Indian Information Technology Outsourcing Companies


 * 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 scope is too narrow. Sr13 06:40, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

List of Indian Information Technology Outsourcing Companies

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Listcruft. Wikipedia is not the yellow pages. I am also concerned that the use of the logos in this article is a violation of fair use. Corvus cornix 05:22, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I just removed the logo's so its not an issue now.

Wiki Policy states that stand alone List are Encyclopedic. See Lists (stand-alone lists).
 * Strong Keep

Further, there are literally thousands of Stand-alone List on Wiki. This is a standard and accepted wiki practice. see a few examples:
 * List of record labels
 * List of Polish monarchs
 * List of English monarchs
 * List of NHL players
 * If you don't believe me click here for a complete list:
 * List of Search
 * List of
 * Thus, that is a completely bogus rejection! If you think this is not encyclopedic then you guys had better get busy deleting the thousands and thousands of similar lists on wiki that were approved. example:
 * List of South Korean companies
 * List of Greek companies
 * List of companies in Taiwan
 * List of railway companies
 * List of Companies on Wiki
 * You are missing the point. even an encyclopedia needs indexs and category for looking up information. A "list of" is just a more organized category and its accepted practice on wiki as noted by the nomerous example provided. If you were going to research 'Indian Outsourcing Firms' using wiki, how are you going to find them if you guys delete the index for it?
 * — Preceding unsigned comment added by Indianofficebuildings (talk • contribs) . Corvus cornix 05:35, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * List of railway companies
 * List of Companies on Wiki
 * You are missing the point. even an encyclopedia needs indexs and category for looking up information. A "list of" is just a more organized category and its accepted practice on wiki as noted by the nomerous example provided. If you were going to research 'Indian Outsourcing Firms' using wiki, how are you going to find them if you guys delete the index for it?
 * — Preceding unsigned comment added by Indianofficebuildings (talk • contribs) . Corvus cornix 05:35, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * You are missing the point. even an encyclopedia needs indexs and category for looking up information. A "list of" is just a more organized category and its accepted practice on wiki as noted by the nomerous example provided. If you were going to research 'Indian Outsourcing Firms' using wiki, how are you going to find them if you guys delete the index for it?
 * — Preceding unsigned comment added by Indianofficebuildings (talk • contribs) . Corvus cornix 05:35, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Please discuss the merits of this article without discussion of other articles. WP:INN and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS do not help us to come to a consensus on this article.  Corvus cornix 05:34, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * now you have changed your mind and are rejecting the page because of the logo's? ohh come on... you are just looking for excuses to delete this article because you are biased against the topic. In that case remove the logo's.  butm don't delete the page for something silly that can be fixed in a few seconds.  you are just wasting people's time if you do that.
 * I didn't change my mind. I haven't edited my nomination since I initially wrote it.  The list is listcruft, but on top of that, the use of the logos is a fair use violation.  Both are problems.  Please don't take a nomination of an article personally, read Wikipedia's Notability guideleines.  And please read WP:AGF.  I have no feelings one way or the other about this topic.  Corvus cornix 05:43, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I disagree, this article is not listcruft. all the articles referenced by the list exist in wiki and the category of the list is useful, particularly if you are researching Indian outsourcing firms for whatever purpose: Either you are supporter or proponent of outsourcing---either way the information is useful from both points of view. Further, I have already removed the logos from the article so that you cannot use that as a way to reject the article.
 * Either you are supporter or proponent of outsourcing. I think you mean opponent, but, no, I'm neutral on the subject.  Corvus cornix 06:10, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I think he meant whether. Calgary 06:32, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete I cannot believe someone actually created an article on this. People will create articles on anything these days no matter how unencyclopediac the topic is.-- Sef rin gle Talk 06:08, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Its not a directory, its a standard blue linked list not served by a category. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 06:18, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete There is a category for outsourcing companies. Where they are based is not a particularly good criterion for categorizing or listing them. GassyGuy 06:24, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete My concern here is that it is a list that is too narrow to be considered worthy of it's own article. It's not a list of Information Technology companies located in India. It's not a list of Information Technology companies that outsource their labor. It's not a list of companies of varying industry that outsource there labor to India. No, it is instead a list only of companies, all of which are Information Technology companies, all of which outsource their labor, and all of which outsource their labor to India. I just think that that's a bit too narrow to be notable. Also, I'm pretty sure that there are more than just 10 companies that do this...either way, maybe if it were expanded to companies that outsource their labor, organized by country, or something like that I would support it, but I don't see how the current article merits it's own article. Also, I think the title is rather misleading, as it suggests that the companies themselves are Indian, as well as requiring decapitalization...Calgary 06:31, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete better as a category. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  12:23, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. This isn't really in indiscriminate list, but I don't think it's a valuable article. As I said in the prod, WP:NOT the Yellow Pages. eaolson 13:11, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - transfer to a category. Crazysuit 04:29, 5 July 2007 (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.