Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SynapseIndia


 * 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. Delete. No reliable sources are brought forth by the keepers to provide evidence that this outfit is notable; consensus is clear. I am discrediting three SPA editors (not a vote anyway). Drmies (talk) 18:23, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

SynapseIndia

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article about an Indian IT outsourcing company that seems fairly well referenced at first glance but is sourced entirely to news releases, references about trademarks and details of the company's activities, including its location in Google maps and addresses. The only tenuous claim to real secondary coverage is this article, which isn't even exclusively about the company. Being one of "1218 companies worldwide" is likewise tenuous at best, and the claims about being member of communities or programs such as Drupal or Microsoft certification programs are not indicative of notability. Google returns mostly self-generated content, blogs and other non-reliable sources. Subject fails WP:CORPDEPTH. § FreeRangeFrog croak 18:16, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 20:07, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 20:07, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Keep:
 * Multiple independent sources has been cited to establish notability, and they are not trivial.
 * The reference to the trademark of the company is very much authoritative, is legal and has been provided by U.S. government.
 * The local address of the company has been supported by its listing in Google map, which also indicates the correctness of the address and company's existence, as Google maps do not show places which does not have verified addresses.
 * Reference to Microsoft certification validates the points mentioned about the company.
 * The page is very much as per the guidelines mentioned by wikipedia on Help:New.
 * Also this page is neither promotional nor does it matches with any reason listed on wikipedia's Articles for deletion page.
 * If there is any specific issue with the page that shall be edited, but a list of recognition supported by external references does not seems to be an issue.

This is contested by the creator of the page. Mridu 18:25, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:42. § FreeRangeFrog croak 16:39, 23 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. Yet another IT outsourcing business advertising on Wikipedia.  Article says nothing that would make this business worthy of remembrance in an encyclopedia. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:28, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Keep: The page has references from a couple of government sites. Not every other company can manage to get it. The notability may not be highly prominent but seems good enough to continue the page on wikipedia. I agree on the PR references, but Octane does not seem to be a website publishing paid or non paid PRs. Recognition of British Airways grant can be removed, as the supported reference seems from a PR site only. Rest of the content on the page seems fine. Partnership with Amazon, Microsoft, CloudMark and Drupal shows promising advents. Pallav Jagoori 09:03, 24 October 2013 (UTC) — Pallav.jagoori (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep: They are a massive company in India. Keep on the grounds of international significance and work with large multinationals. Upon clicking through their links, they've just set up their references incorrectly (linking to their own page- big no no). I'll see what I can do to reset their reference links to support the wikipedia guidelines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kimbrubeck (talk • contribs) 15:05, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Keep: The page is not being used to advertise or market the business. More source information should be added but the page is not seriously violating any rules. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcdemory95 (talk • contribs) 17:59, 28 October 2013 (UTC) — Marcdemory95 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment: Based on the points mentioned by various wikipedians, I have updated the page to remove PR reference and links to our own page, trying to get the page content inline to WP:42. Mridu 15:38, 25 October 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mridusinha (talk • contribs) 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, &#124;  Uncle Milty  &#124;  talk  &#124;  13:56, 27 October 2013 (UTC)


 * delete - the only third party coverage is this passing reference the company only has 200 employees. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  14:20, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete - as Ihcoyc said, a run of the mill company, that is not notable, it is not reported as significant subjects of news coverage. ///Euro Car  GT  15:50, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete Unfortunately wiki has been made into a personal advertisement ground, there are 1000s articles like this that need t be deleted. Subjects need to understand you have to be already be notable to have an article here and not try to become notable based on self advertisement on wiki.--Nlfestival (talk) 17:43, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Comment: TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom Indeed SynapseIndia had only 200 people when this reference was published in economictimes, but have grown since then. Thanks for your comments, I'm working on to make the page more authentic. As agreed by Kimbrubeck, SynapseIndia is a notable company, but probably have not created the reference link properly and I'm working towards making it more inline to WP policies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mridusinha (talk • contribs) 06:18, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, you keep stating that you are working on that, and yet no third party coverage of any significance has yet been provided. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  12:45, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Keep: A couple of references from prominent newspaper has been provided. Partnership with Amazon & Microsoft, in combination with having a registered trademark with United States govt. It seems that this company is notable.

User:TheRedPenOfDoom, I have noticed your edits on their page and you had been removing a couple of references that they have added. Is this an another edit war you are involved in? Shakil Chikodi (talk) 09:39, 30 October 2013 (UTC) — Shakleon (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * i would suggest that you read WP:RS to understand why i removed the unreliable sources.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  10:17, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * the "references from prominent newspapers that have been added" include a trivial passing mention that the owner is in his third office, but actually nothing about the company and certainly nothing significant.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  10:27, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Keep: The article  can  be  made  more  straight  forward  by  removing  texts  like  -  "one  of  the  few",  and  there  is  too  much  usage  of  the  company  name  in  the  recognitions'  list. Also, the  recognitions  are  not  all recognitions,  it  also  mention  partnerships  hence  the  heading  can  be  modified. The page  otherwise  doesn't  seems  to  be  promotional  or  an  advertisement. With the  kind  of  references  they  have  provided,  it  certainly  does  not  seems  to  be  run  of  mill  either. The business  as  I  have  researched  about  it,  before  participating  in  Afd,  seems  notable.,  referring  to  WP:BEFORE,  WP:NNC  and  WP:SIGCOV. It doesn't  seems  to  violate  what  Wikipedia  is  not  and  also  as  per  WP:B2B,  it  should  be  given  a  benefit  of  doubt.Srirudra (talk) 09:45, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It's interesting you reference B2B, which despite being an essay, contains the following: An article about a business can be saved from non-neutral language by being rich in verifiable facts about the business itself. An article that is poor in facts can't be helped at all, and ought to be deleted.. There is nothing verifiably notable about the subject, and if you researched it surely you were able to come up with some significant coverage that could establish notability. So far though, despite the many assertions that the subject is "OK", nothing has been added to the article that could possibly save it from being deleted. WP:BEFORE is my responsibility as nominator - if I had found sources and coverage we wouldn't be having this conversation. § FreeRangeFrog croak 17:20, 31 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.