Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/National Informatics Centre


 * 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 keep. RL0919 (talk) 05:22, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

National Informatics Centre

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable government agency. Google gives me only name-drops ( is the best source it throws out, but it's too sparse on details about NIC to be useful; string "National informatics centre"). The article also has some serious issues with promotional content, but the biggest issue is the existential one of a lack of viable sources. —A little blue Bori v^_^v  Onward to 2020 04:31, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The sources added by 14.139.11.11 are all the company, press releases, and the one article I linked in the AfD nom; thus none are acceptable sources. —A little blue Bori  v^_^v  Onward to 2020 07:20, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  CodeLyoko  talk  05:01, 5 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete – Insufficient independent coverage to support an encyclopedia article. I was asked to look at this a few days ago at IRC and was disappointed by the lack of sources. That was not a time to nominate for deletion, but now that it has been, I agree with the reasoning.  — jmcgnh (talk) (contribs) 05:15, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment: Informally looking at this it seems almost incredulous no sources have been found for an agency that has WP:SUSTAINed sustained for over 40 years. It is indeed rare click on the 'books' link and find so many relevant hits, albeit main will be passing passing mentions and others may be self-published ....  The article may have all sorts of issues needing clean up and improvement but it would be most strange if the topic is not appropriate for an article.  But there has likely been and I wonder if that is the reason it has been brought to WP:AFD? Djm-leighpark (talk) 11:02, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , I have looked up the article in multiple places and can only find passing mentions, even sources in Hindi that are only passing mentions. Just because a company has existed for a long time does not make it notable, for example in Dallas there is a plumbing company that has been around for 120 years and yet it's very hard to find information on said company to make an article. CodeLyoko  talk  15:29, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, sources are sparse and does not really have coverage to warrent an article. CodeLyoko  talk  15:31, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep WP:INDIA contributor here. This is one the biggest public sector (Government owned) technology companies in India with 162.5 Million $ (1150 crore ₹) annual budget in 2018-19. NIC is covered in these books    which is enough for me to vote a Keep. There are many news coverages of the projects undertaken by this company. The article may be a stub, but it has potential to expand and the subject is notable. wP:HEY also applies, as the article may have been in poor shape but several editors have recently worked to remove the unsourced/poorly sourced content and the article can now be kept. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  18:48, 5 November 2019 (UTC)


 * For Thankyou for those. Prabhu, Malwad and  Bhattacharya as far as I can establish are or have relevant sections written by NIC people so likely to provoke issues from a straight WP:RS angle viewpoint. For Kumar, Jain and Pareek one relevant page is 2, there are others. (NB: please reference pages or location in large sources here and when citing).Djm-leighpark (talk) 23:19, 5 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep: Me getting 20+ lakh google hits for National Informatics Centre and over 9 thousand in Scholar, even if 99.9% were useless for WP:RS it seem unlikely all be be so. In fact every bit of WP:COMMONSENSE tells me the subject is a reasonable, probably nigh on 90 crore people are affected by it and given the size and significance and longevity of the entity it would seem nearly insane if it had to be incubated as WP:TOOSOON.  Per advice given to me above WP:IRC would be pointless.  I know little about the plumbers in old Cowboys town (0.12 crore sort of not really comparable to 90 crore catchment) but I do know the UK news had some noteworthy ex-plumber news which is not good.  Per WP:THREE I will initially present 3 specific sources for consideration, Rituraj(2018),, Jamwal et. al(2011) and Venkatanarayan et. al.(2017) and should those for any reason fail there will likely be replacements available from those better in this area than I.  One source, Rituraj, is actually (Kumar, Jain & Pareek, 2018) from above but the I've reworked citation differently so both Author and Editors of the sources are clearer for scrutiny.Djm-leighpark (talk) 19:52, 6 November 2019 (UTC)


 * I thank you for your efforts. Since the sources have been found and added to the article, I will happily withdraw this request. That said, there still remains the efforts to turn the article into a promotional piece, though that is not an issue for AfD. —A little blue Bori  v^_^v  Onward to 2020 05:33, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
 * @ thankyou for coming back quickly ... it is much appreciated. I can become more erratic the longer I am at AfDs/DRVs etc.  I think your initial insight into sparse WP:RS results among the masses of google hits was in fact very accurate and I had to try all manner of predicate filters in the search string to google and scholar and news to try to find anything useful in the top of a list.  Hopefully we're good for a close and peoples can concentrate on developing a good article (it probably won't be me but it will be on my watchlist).  Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 07:50, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable national institution. Arunram (talk) 16:16, 11 November 2019 (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.