Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quest Global


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Biblio  worm  01:07, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

QuEST Global

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Company is not notable WP:N. Clearly no significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources WP:ORG. Some passing mentions in business press about take-overs etc. Wikipedia is not a Yellow Pages WP:NOTCATALOG. Thanks -- Marksterdam (talk) 11:16, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 12:07, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 12:07, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Marksterdam (talk) 10:31, 11 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep Weak Keep - Hmmmmm... I may be wrong here, but looking through the sources I'm seeing more than passing mention in a wide range of business press. Plus, this place seems to have 5,000+ employees. I know head count isn't a criteria under WP:CORP, but 5k employees strikes me as a lot. This article is probably just poorly referenced, not non-notable. NickCT (talk) 16:30, 4 December 2014 (UTC) Shifting from keep to weak keep per rationale below NickCT (talk) 17:36, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * At Marksterdam's request, I'm noting that direct coverage of Quest exists in Forbes, Times of India, The Economic Times, Business Standard, Trade Magazine Aerospace Manufacturing and Design.
 * Looking at the sources again, I'd probably call coverage of Quest in Indian media "extensive". Coverage outside India is fairly limited. NickCT (talk) 13:37, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you NickCT. I think the Forbes article, fulfills WP:CORPDEPTH and is a valuable find. The others strike me as very much passing references of routine business announcements and are probably the result of PR annoucements. Hoping for more votes. Marksterdam (talk) 17:20, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
 * - re "others strike me as very much passing references of routine business announcements" - Ok. Point taken for some of those specific links I offered. My counter point is that Times of India, The Economic Times and The Business Standard are all moderately high quality RS. I'm seeing 44 mentions in the Times of India/Economic Times, and 21 mentions in the Business Standard. Granted I haven't gone through them all, but would you argue that none of these will fulfill WP:CORPDEPTH? Seems unlikely.... NickCT (talk) 17:37, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you NickCT. I think as an engineering outsourcing company they do work with many notable companies and this accounts for a great deal of the passing coverage. Their acquisitions and spin-offs clearly garner interest from the specialised business press such as the Economic Times as they do feature routine announcements of these. Most likely, based on quotes within the articles, these stories are often PR led. However, I'd say none of this means they pass WP:CORP and belong in a general Encyclopedia. Perhaps a more specialised business Wiki such as WikiBusiness may be more suitable for this engineering outsourcing company.
 * As an example, looking at the first half of the Economic Times links from Google that that you reference this is what I see:
 * Brief announcements of mergers or sales of part of the business.
 * Brief announcements of mergers or sales of part of the business.
 * Passing mention, such as identifying a quoted person as working for an organization.
 * Brief announcements of mergers or sales of part of the business.
 * Brief announcements of mergers or sales of part of the business. Only a few sentences of background information.
 * Inclusion in lists of similar organizations.
 * Passing mention, such as identifying a quoted person as working for an organization.
 * Passing mention. Article about a spin off company. Not about Quest Global.
 * Passing mention. Article about a spin off company. Not about Quest Global.
 * Passing mention. Article about a spin off company. Not about Quest Global.
 * Passing mention. Article about a spin off company. Not about Quest Global.
 * Passing mention. Article about outsourced about parts used for Airbus.
 * Passing mention. Article based on a competition run by the company. Clearly a PR led piece.
 * Invalid result. No mention of Quest Global.
 * Invalid result. No mention of Quest Global.
 * Passing mention, such as identifying a quoted person as working for an organization.
 * Invalid result. No mention of Quest Global.
 * Invalid result. No mention of Quest Global.
 * Passing mention. Routine business announcement. Very little about Quest Global.
 * Inclusion in lists of similar organizations.
 * Passing mention. Routine business announcement. Very little about Quest Global. Based on quotes seems PR led.
 * Routing business announcement. Some information about Quest but hardly in depth.
 * Some of the above may contain a few sentences about the background of the company, but for me clearly don't pass WP:CORPDEPTH. Thanks - Marksterdam (talk) 17:17, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * - Ok. Granted none of those sources aren't what I'd call "high quality". They'd all be "low to mid quality". That said, there seems to be so much "low to mid quality" material that I'm finding it really hard to see this as a delete situation. Given I'm having trouble finding "high quality" references, I'll shift from keep to weak keep, but I think that's as far as I'm going. We may need more eyes on this to find consensus.
 * BTW - Some direct coverage in the House Business Journal. Not that that's a great source either.... NickCT (talk) 17:36, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ⨹   05:04, 11 December 2014 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * Keep -Okay, here is the significant coverage of subject in multiple secondary, independent and reliable sources, -,, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , (highbeam -, , , , , , , ), etc. Anupmehra  - Let's talk!  09:00, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 10:21, 18 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep – Meets WP:CORPDEPTH. Source examples include, , , . NorthAmerica1000 12:51, 25 December 2014 (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.