Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Noesis Capital Advisors


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. If the article creator wants to work on this article in Draft space, let me know or request this at WP:REFUND. Liz Read! Talk! 03:40, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Noesis Capital Advisors

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Does not meet the notability requirements; WP:NCORP. Sources rely on press releases masquerading as legitimate sources. Nevertheless, I am willing to withdraw the nomination if any enhancements are made to the article per the guidelines outlined in WP:HEY. RPSkokie (talk) 06:42, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. Shellwood (talk) 08:41, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:41, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete - WP:NEWSORGINDIA needs to be considered here, which is evident in this reference from the India Times and this reference in Businessworld. Reviewing WP:ORGCRIT, none of the references used on this page or any that I was able to find in search meet that guideline. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:18, 14 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep: It passes WP:GNG, WP:SIGCOV and have multiple references from reliable sources like Economic Times, LiveMint, Business Standard, DNA India, The Hindu to verify same, providing few reference            . The Article can be improved but does not require deletion. DSN18 (talk) 08:58, 15 August 2023 (UTC) DSN18 (talk) 08:58, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Also, Has court filing references of Delhi High Court and one supporting reference.   DSN18 (talk) 09:51, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * As you are the creator of this page I am assuming you have done a thorough check of the references. Did you review WP:NEWSORGINDIA and compare the references? For instance, the Economic Times reference has no byline and written like a promotional piece, LiveMint is openly selling articles on Fiverr, etc. Can you show me which ones you cited specifically meet WP:SIRS? --CNMall41 (talk) 16:50, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello @CNMall41, Yes. I have thoroughly checked the references, You can check few references like Economic Times Reference, Business World Reference, hotelierindia.com reference, Business Standard Reference(1) and Reference (2).
 * Also, reference for the Delhi high court case filing against OYO Rooms and Court filing Reference 2 which can be said to meet WP:SIRS in itself. Also provided supporting Economic Times reference and Indian Kanoon reference for court filings. DSN18 (talk) 18:18, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I looked at the first two references you gave as examples and stopped because both of them are not written under editorial oversight. Also, if you are stating that a court filing meets WP:SIRS, then you missed the example provided which states, "The court filing is significant and reliable (in that the court record is a verified account of a legal action being taken) – but not secondary (court filings are primary sources) or independent (they are written by the parties to the legal action, which have a vested interest in the outcome)." --CNMall41 (talk) 06:28, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello @CNMall41, what about the Business Standard Reference 1 and Refernece 2. Also, do check The Hindubusinessline reference and livemint reference and This Economic Times Reference. Yes, i agree to your reply and checked that, Gave court reference as "The court filing is significant and reliable". DSN18 (talk) 09:15, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, you agree that court cases cannot be used to establish notability under WP:ORGCRIT correct?
 * The other references you provided are what we consider routine announcements (funding, lawsuit, expansion, etc.). --CNMall41 (talk) 17:25, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
 * @CNMall41, i agree that court case cannot be used as the only reference for notability, but it is considered significant and reliable. All the other references provided are from reliable sources and proves notability, may be you can consider few as routine announcements but mentions in multiple reliable sources has some importance right. References provided are all from reliable sources and verifies notability. consider this reference too. DSN18 (talk) 19:06, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I feel like we are going in circles. This reference you just provided falls under those listed at WP:NEWSORGINDIA. The byline is "Online Desk" which indicates it was not staff written and has no editorial oversight. For the other comment, routine announcements and mentions do not add up to significant coverage. We can use mentions and routine announcements for content on the page, but not to establish notability. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:18, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
 * @CNMall41, Consider following references which might clear your doubts regarding notability. Reference 1 (Editor:Sakshi Singh, ET), Reference 2 (by Staff Writer of Hotelierindia), Reference 3 (by Shally Seth Mohile, rediff.com) ,Reference 4 (by Bond, Hotelierindia) and Reference 5 (by Forlin Mendez, voyagersworld.in). DSN18 (talk) 20:08, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think you understand NCORP and especially the requirement for "Independent Content" as per ORGIND. Ref1 is based on an announcement by the topic company, it is not "Independent Content" and fails ORGIND. It is PR. I can find other regurgitated articles on the same topic which contain the same information such as this in Travel Trends, this in hospibuz, this in Todays Traveller, etc. Ref 2 is also PR. Here's another version of the same announcement, fails ORGIND. Ref 3 relies entirely on information provided by the topic company and their partners, is not "Independent Content", is not even about the topic company, fails ORGIND and CORPDEPTH. Ref 4 is more PR - here's another copy of the same announcement, fails ORGIND. Ref 5 yes another announcement - again here's another copy of the same thing, fails ORGIND.  HighKing++ 14:43, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:47, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Delete, per WP:NORG, with a careful consideration of WP:NEWSORGINDIA. In my review of the sources provided above, only one (voyagers) passed WP:SIRS, and even that is only reporting of a routine business transaction. Longhornsg (talk) 07:17, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 * @Longhornsg, notability is notability wether its in one or two resources. you agreed that it passes WP:SIRS in above but still you voted it as Delete?, Let me clarify and help you reconsider. I agree, You can consider few references to come under WP:NEWSORGINDIA but not all right. Mentions in many notable sources has no importance? and Please recheck this Reference 1 and Reference 2 which also passes notability. These references don't come under WP:NEWSORGINDIA as they are not additional supplements or so, Please check examples of WP:NEWSORGINDIA before considering anything. I agree the article may need improvement but does not require deletion. DSN18 (talk) 09:10, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Ref 1 isn't about the company, but mentions them. Ref 2 is in a trade journal, which we don't consider as notable; we could use these sources if there were other, strong sourcing available, but there isn't. We can't hang our hat on those references, without a stronger base. Oaktree b (talk) 14:00, 21 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete Most of the sources are about routine business dealings, the only green sources per sourcebot are about a hotel being sold, seems related, but isn't specifically about this business enterprise. Oaktree b (talk) 13:58, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with *each* source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. These sources are routine business announcements and PR.   HighKing++ 14:43, 23 August 2023 (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.