Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SAMCO Securities (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. Daniel (talk) 22:37, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

SAMCO Securities
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log )

The topic is a company therefore WP:NCORP is the applicable guideline. Most of the references are based on company announcements or basic financial reporting. I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, references to date fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic therefore fails WP:NCORP. The topic was "soft deleted" as an editor said it was a "company brand wiki page. Please restore the page so that I can make edits to it" but all the only edit was to update the company logo.  HighKing++ 13:38, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions.  HighKing++ 13:39, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions.  HighKing++ 13:39, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  HighKing++ 13:39, 26 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment: Presumably, the secondary sources cited in the article aren't giving it significant enough coverage, right? If so, then I'd agree with deletion. It also reads like it was written by the company right now (although of course that specific problem could be fixed). DesertPipeline (talk) 04:47, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, NCORP requires that references are *both* significant *and* contain "Independent Content". We don't regard references that rely on information provided by the company (or a source connected with the company) as good enough - "echo chamber" references do not establish notability. Whether the "echo chamber" reference is in a "secondary" source and "significant" doesn't matter if it doesn't contain "Independent Content". The references in the article all fail our criteria for establishing notability as follows:
 * This from The Hindu is based on "a statement" from the company, fails WP:ORGIND
 * This from Business Standard] is based on a statement/PR from the company, fails WP:ORGIND.
 * This from Business Standard is based on PR and interview with the CEO, fails ORGIND.
 * This from Time of India is entirely based on an announcement/PR from the company, fails ORGIND
 * This Bloomberg link (broken) is entirely based on information provided by the company, fails ORGIND
 * This from The Hindu Business Line is based on an announcement/PR from the company with an interview with the CEO, fails ORGIND
 * Thie next from the Hindu Business Line is entirely based on PR/announcement from the company, fails ORGIND
 * This from Financial Express is based on company PR and quotations from Omkeshwar Singh who will be leading the new platform for Samco and quotations from the CEO, fails ORGIND.
 * As you can see, the criteria failed by the above references was ORGIND first and foremost - that is, the content of those articles was not "independent" but relied entirely on information provided by the company or their officers.  HighKing++ 13:28, 28 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your detailed answer! DesertPipeline (talk) 02:11, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete: Due to HighKing's response I definitely agree that this is the correct action here. DesertPipeline (talk) 02:11, 29 March 2021 (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.