Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shree Ganesh Jewellery House


 * 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. L Faraone  00:57, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Shree Ganesh Jewellery House

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG or WP:CORP. Sources offered are all WP:PRIMARY or trivial coverage of the company's press release or the investment prospects and thus unsuitable for establishing notability. Googling turns up nothing suitable. Msnicki (talk) 15:47, 14 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep ...unless you're saying the Business Standard news source isn't a reliable independent secondary source. There are several lengthy articles published between 2010 and 2013 already cited in the article. Sionk (talk) 16:11, 14 July 2013 (UTC)


 * These articles are WP:ROUTINE coverage of the company's press releases and not suitable for establishing notability. Msnicki (talk) 16:36, 14 July 2013 (UTC)


 * That's why press releases are released to the press, isn't it?! This isn't PRNewswire, it's a major Indian news publication. What would you expect the coverage to be about, other than the activities of the company? Sounds more like an IDONTLIKEIT, or ITSNOTAMERICAN argument to me. Sionk (talk) 16:47, 14 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Please refer to the guidelines at WP:CORPDEPTH. It's trivial coverage of the company's press releases.  I propose we focus on having a guidelines-based discussion.  There's no need for uncivil and unfounded charges of bias.  Msnicki (talk) 17:04, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, of the three Business Standard sources, one is a press release, two are substantial articles. In my view that meets the very minimum standards for notability. They're not trivial and they're not press releases and they're published in a reliable national news source. The company is floated in the national stock exchange, all these things pointed towards it being notable, IMO, when I moved it from AfC. Sionk (talk) 17:38, 14 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete The only real information is basically investor information, nothing to make the company notable. Jtowler (talk) 20:19, 14 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. I don't understand the nom's argument. Only one of the cited articles is a press release; most of them are non-trivial and independent, and therefore can be used to establish notability. And there are plenty more sources online, for example, , from the first page of Google News results. DoctorKubla (talk) 21:14, 14 July 2013 (UTC)


 * All three of your cites are routine coverage of the company's press releases. Msnicki (talk) 23:20, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * You've repeated that several times, including in your opening arguments. Why not stand back and let others have their opinion? Sionk (talk) 23:29, 14 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Referring to your original complaint before you edited it, that I hadn't provided evidence these are routine coverage of their press releases, you're supposed to read them and notice clues like, "Nilesh Parekh, chairman, Shree Ganesh Jewellery House, said", in the first cite, "according to a press statement issued by Ganesh Jewellery House" in the second, and "said Nilesh Parekh, chairman of Shree Ganesh Jewellery House" in the third. I haven't stopped anyone from having any opinion they want.   Msnicki (talk) 23:46, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 15 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep In my opinion the article must not be removed as there are plenty of reliable independent secondary sources to establish its notability as required by WP. The news in Moneycontrol.com which is India’s No. 1 Financial Portal and the news in Business Standard sounds its suitability for establishing notability. The company has several times received awards for outstanding Export Performance from Gems and Jewellery Export Promotion Council (GJEPC). The company has also received the “Four Star Export House” certificate from the Joint Director of Foreign Trade, Government of India in June 2009.  — Anna570108 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 18:23, 19 July 2013 (UTC).


 * The moneycontrol.com article is just investor information. It possibly meets the description of a profile as described in WP:LISTED but it's still only a single questionable source you could probably find on any listed stock if you looked hard enough.  This is WP:Run-of-the-mill.  Msnicki (talk) 21:22, 19 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. For one thing The Economic Times ("the world's second-most widely read English-language business newspaper, after the Wall Street Journal") ranks this company at #103 on their list of the top 500 companies in India, with revenues around $1.5 Billion. It is a publicly traded company, "sufficient independent sources almost always exist for such companies," (see WP:LISTED). There are at least 8 pages of Google news hits, yes some of them are trivial or reprints of press releases, but many are references to reliable, independent news sources doing their due diligence in reporting on the finances of a major, notable, public company. The refs I found (quite quickly) are too numerous to list here, and I was just looking at English language sources covering a multinational corporation in an area of the world where English is not the predominant language. - Wine Guy ~Talk  21:48, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Meets WP:LISTED.  Mini  apolis  17:40, 25 July 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.