Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mulberry Chemicals (2nd nomination)


 * 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.  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 01:06, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Mulberry Chemicals
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

Unremarkable chemical company. Previously deleted at AfD for being, well, unremarkable. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:56, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete, agree with nom, fails notability guideline. FYI declined G4 speedy because the main deletion reason on the first AfD was spam and contributed by a blocked user. None of these apply here. CharlieEchoTango  ( contact ) 18:01, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment, I would like to enlighten the users that there was note left on talk page i.e. [] before creation asking for permission for creation of the said article. Also if people have noticed there was a note on the article saying [This is an article recently created by a new user. More editing may be needed to meet standards, but please be courteous and assume good faith, and consider leaving a constructive message on the creator's talk page if large changes need to be made.]   The consideration of joining Wikipedia was taken after the blackout and support request last week, but if this is the treatment to articles I have completely misunderstood the concept of free will.

Also coming to Notability Issues the firm is a US Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) recognised and narcotic raw material (controlled substance) manufacturer in India. There are very few in world. The companies like Dow Chemicals and Sigma-Aldrich are related. That serves the purpose. Also the main issue of earlier mentioned on deletion was - creation by a banned or blocked user. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| - and not notability. I would leave the argument with rest of users to decide. Good Day X*chemistry nerd (talk) 22:17, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * But you are clearly not a "new user". Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:16, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 26 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. Mmm....chemicals.  Mulberry chemicals.  (And they could call themselves a solution provider and mean it.)  The claim of DEA approval probably gets them to a claim of minimal importance, but unfortunately all the sources given are press releases and PR material, and both Google News and Books draw a blank on "Mulberry Chemicals".  They also draw a blank on REVIB, which I gathered was a former business that Mulberry got its DEA permits by buying out.  I also googled शहतूत रसायन निजी सीमित - nothing again.  I just don't see any reliable independent sources here. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 04:34, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * 'Comment. Google scholar shows student research - [] and books show cross border history []. But ofcourse I am not concluding a effective keep or even delete.X*chemistry nerd (talk) 14:12, 26 January 2012 (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.