Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Net4


 * 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. Spartaz Humbug! 16:47, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Net4

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This Organisation Does not Cite Notable References. All of the references are coming through PR Resources or Directories. VI-007 (talk) 09:09, 21 September 2013 (UTC) — Virgininfatuation (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sockpuppet of Viii007 (talk • contribs).
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. (GKCH (talk) 09:29, 21 September 2013 (UTC))

Keep All references are notable e.g. Econominc Times, Moneycontrol etc. Yes I agree need more references and details. These resources are not PR/Directories. Company is public limited and listed in BSE and NSE. Company is widely known in Internet world sine 1985.(GKCH (talk) 09:24, 21 September 2013 (UTC))
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Keep, there is doubt about company, since long time in Internet industry and notable in India.(117.212.122.213 (talk) 15:06, 22 September 2013 (UTC)) — 117.212.122.213 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete - Fails WP:GNG per lack of third-party sources. Of the three references in the article, one reference is a press release, the other two are are simply stocks/financial data with no significant coverage whatsoever. - Aoidh (talk) 05:01, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. There have been significant number of third-party coverages for the company. A simple GNews search also shows that. Shovon (talk) 09:52, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * A simple GNews search shows nothing but simple press releases, that does nothing for establishing notability. - Aoidh (talk) 10:33, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Is that so? Why don't you release some PR material to the press and get those published in reputed newspapers? Shovon (talk) 16:41, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * That's irrelevant; the article lacks third-party sources. That you believe it's difficult to release press releases has nothing to do with that. - Aoidh (talk) 05:42, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I think the argument, which I am neither supporting nor opposing, was not that it is difficult to release press releases (anyone can do so for a payment) but that press releases only get picked up by reputed newspapers if the subject is notable. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:39, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * It does hint at possible notability, but it comes nowhere close to showing it. They aren't independent sources just because they were picked up by a newspaper, and that's what's required for a subject to warrant an article on Wikipedia.  Articles require notability, as shown through third-party sources that are independent of the subject, so that article can be written neutrally.  Without those kinds of sources, writing a neutral article is impossible, which is why notability is important; this article does not have that. - Aoidh (talk) 12:02, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I totally agree with Shovon, we should focus about importance of article/contribution. I supported VI-007 action when he/she proposed deletion of article, but without knowing about article again proposed for deletion.GKCH (talk) 17:54, 24 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment The company history needs better sourcing, but the 1985 stated establishment date for Mangla Chemicals isn't going to be easy to verify online. Meanwhile, I found a couple of additional mentions. -- Trevj (talk) 09:12, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I found this link from The Economic Times, which talks about the company's history since its inception in 1985 as Mangla Chemicals. Shovon (talk) 13:48, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Your first link is a copy of a press release that can also be found verbatim in their company reports, this one is about an individual, not a company. - Aoidh (talk) 16:59, 1 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep, good reliable secondary sources here. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 16:44, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * "Here" meaning what? WP:GNG requires independent sources, and none have been shown.  Every single source shown in the AfD is a reprinted press release. - Aoidh (talk) 16:53, 1 October 2013 (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.