Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of companies in Gurgaon


 * 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. On a pure "vote count", the opinions are evenly divided. However, the "keep" argument is that there is a potential for an article entitled List of companies based in Gurgaon with a different set of inclusion criteria from this article. After reviewing the current article, I find such a solution would involve replacing the vast majority of its content and I cannot see that the current content could be a foundation for such an article. As such, I am interpreting this debate as a consensus for removing this article, and I am therefore closing the discussion with a "delete" outcome. There is however no prejudice against a different article with a different title. Sjakkalle (Check!)  18:33, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

List of companies in Gurgaon

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Wikipedia is not a directory and this list is just a maintenance nightmare. Check the history for the number of valid vs invalid changes over, say, the last 24 months. Please can we apply a bit of common sense here rather than deploy arguments such as "it doesn't have to be complete or even accurate", "someone, somewhere might find it useful", "storage is cheap" etc. Unless you are one of the people who regularly has to clean it up, you may not realise what a pain in the bum it really is. Sitush (talk) 04:30, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 09:02, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America1000 09:02, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America1000 09:02, 8 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment: could try protecting it as a less drastic option. Siuenti (talk) 12:01, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Nom's argument fails as WP:SUSCEPTIBLE. It does need work of course, but per deletion policy at WP:ATD this should be handled through other means. Rename to List of companies based in Gurgaon and tighten its inclusion criteria to match Category:Companies based in Gurgaon, of which there are plenty to justify a list. Add a comment in the source code that only companies with articles or with a RS that indicates notability will be permitted. Protect as necessary. postdlf (talk) 19:15, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Has that not been tried? I know the old chestnut that every category is entitled to a list etc but it is bollocks, sorry, and the inclusion criteria for the category is effectively unpatrolled anyway. "Based" is a highly subjective word in itself - "based" as in headquarters or as in having a presence? While the cat is clear as to meaning, the reality probably differs (I am not checking all 55, just going off my memory of past checks). Adding comments to the source or even a box at the top of the edit window achieves nothing when it comes to articles relating to India - we see this time and again, and it is a constant reiteration of edit summaries such as "see WP:NLIST and WP:V". I despair of lists of this type, which do-gooders come out to support in deletion discussions but very rarely seem to maintain before or after - the same has happened with lists relating to castes and clans and, yes, it is muggins here who takes the flak because everyone else walks away. Sorry for venting but this really does get my goat. - Sitush (talk) 21:17, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The page has never been protected before, but I don't even know it rates page protection given the slow rate of inappropriate additions, let alone deletion contra WP:NOTCLEANUP. Maybe you just need to walk away from it if you're getting so heated and let other editors worry about it. postdlf (talk) 01:33, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I do put my money where my mouth is; after contributing to the discussion in Articles for deletion/List of hotels in the Philippines (2nd nomination) I not only cleaned up the page but have helped maintain it since despite having no history with the page or interest in the topic, so don't let lack of faith in other editors guide your actions here (nor should WP:NOEFFORT, however). I'm happy to watchlist this one as well and help revert any nonnotable entries. postdlf (talk) 15:07, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep, rename to List of companies based in Gurgaon and tighten the article as suggested by above. Qualifies for an article per WP:NOTDUP relative to Category:Companies based in Gurgaon. Also qualifies as a functional navigational aid per WP:LISTPURP. North America1000 00:40, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. WP:NOTYELLOW. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk)  07:54, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as these articles are always vulnerable to advertising, non-notable and otherwise unacceptable and unmaintained lists thus nothing at all convincing. SwisterTwister   talk  17:54, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. We have a great man ysucharticles, mostly unchallenged; it's an accepted type of articles. Problems can be dealt with.  DGG ( talk ) 05:54, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:OSE. Maybe we should get rid of all the others also if they are experiencing the same problems. It's crap and it is contrary to policy etc, especially NOTDIR. The people voting to keep here practically never get involved in Indic articles, except perhaps for DGG who certainly had an ill-informed spree of de-PRODing some time ago that ultimately resulted in a complete waste of time at AfD (where the things were indeed deleted). In fact, if this is kept I may quite pointily make the maintenance nightmare 500 times worse, literally, by creating similar lists for that many other Indian locales. Why should I or anyone else dedicated to one of the most wild topic areas give a shit any more? - Sitush (talk) 14:18, 21 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Yeah you guys really need to try to get them protected. If that's against current guidelines try to fix them. Siuenti (talk) 21:11, 21 June 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.