Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zensar Technologies


 * 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. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 01:02, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Zensar Technologies

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not Notable. No Reliable sources. Links are bad or lead to nonfunctioning sites held by this company. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 06:36, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep, but remove all promotional puffery and uncited or self-cited info. . .Mean as custard (talk) 07:45, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep It's easy to find more sources about this, for example Forbes. Andrew D. (talk) 08:35, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep - for reasons those voting keep above. Zensar gave me over 1,000,000 google hits; and while a lot of the early ones are Press release, Primary, Jobs etc, others are better.  So yet again I question was WP:BEFORE dilligent?  Templating the uncited content, some of which seems at a glance to be fairly audacious, followed by removal of uncited or dubious content is surely a less disruptive way to go.Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:49, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America1000 11:05, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America1000 11:05, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 11:05, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep, cleanup and remove the advert-like tone of the article. Per other votes and the AfD is not cleanup essay. Regards, SshibumXZ (talk · contribs). 07:31, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep.It has a lot of valid sources available and has been published in news articles and is evident in ForbesVinodbasker (talk) 16:30, 4 October 2018 (UTC)*
 * Delete - Per BeenAroundAwhile, first ref is company annual report and the other ten are acquisition announcements. David notMD (talk) 20:23, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep I knew nothing about Zensar. I was interested to read that they acquired Cynosure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.204.172.14 (talk) 23:53, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   13:01, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep and cleanup / remove promo tone per and . Sakaimover (talk) 15:17, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 *  Redirect  (Struck - see below) to RPG Group. The sources (both here and elsewhere) are a mix of WP:ROUTINE, (some rephrased) press releases or failures to satisfy Sig Cov or independent. Since relisted, it clearly has been noted that the Keep statements are not !votes. Please find and LINK some suitable sources here if you want to demonstrate notability, as WP:NCORP is currently not met. Nosebagbear (talk) 21:54, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * please explain to everyone who has participated in this discussion and voted, how their clear votes are “not votes”? Thank you. Sakaimover (talk) 23:23, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * - to give three examples, Mean As Custard's "Keep, but remove all promotional puffery and uncited or self-cited info" - gives no response to nomination. 50.204's "Keep I knew nothing about Zensar. I was interested to read that they acquired Cynosure" - doesn't give any response or justification either way. Your own "and cleanup / remove promo tone per Mean as custard and SshibumXZ" - neither your point nor theirs respond to the nomination accurately. A lack of reliable sourcing (whether here or elsewhere) means notability is not satisfied. Thus, attempting to demonstrate it is, is key to the AfD. Nosebagbear (talk) 17:31, 12 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment How the nom. can even do a WP:BEFORE and state categotically NO (not one) RS when the number of google hits exceed 1,000,000 seems incredulous. That said and incredibly high percent are press release.  Some that might count are : 1 2 3 4.  But overall a company of Zensar's size reasonably earn's an article.  i have confidence the nom is the end disruptive.Djm-leighpark (talk) 23:36, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Number of google hits is a terrible way of assessing whether there is suitable sourcing. And WP:BEFORE doesn't require checking every piece of information in the world (no unearthing library of Alexandria etc), but a reasonably detailed consideration.  This isn't a response to the sources (I'll check them tomorrow morning), but I felt the underlying statement still needed to be responded to first. Nosebagbear (talk) 17:31, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
 * And it can be a very good indicator that one has failed to locate sources that are likely to be there. The nom. in this case should have seen something like google hits 1,030,000; google books 1,380; news 8,700 and 296 scholar ... capitalisation and annual revenue over USD  480 million ...quoted on BSE ...  to which the nom presents us with Not Notable. No Reliable sources. Links are bad or lead to nonfunctioning sites held by this company.  I am expect his good faith in doing a reasonable analysis to those sources.  Now if I was nominating this I really ought to have a have some stocks with a load of schoolchildren ready with buckets of WP:TROUT on standby ... because if even 0.001% of those hits are RS .....   And I need to do a WP:BEFORE appropriate for a company of this size .... not look at the first 100 hits and give up.   While most hits do relate to the Zensar entity and not something else, there is an incredibly high proportion of press release and job related clutter.  But pragmatically this one is too big to go.  See also 5.  Relister should have saved disruption and kept NC in my opinion as its the only plausible result and ultimately a waste of effort.Djm-leighpark (talk) 19:35, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I can't talk as to source 4, as I don't have access, sources 1,2,5 didn't seem to provide enough detail on what the company actually does to be relevant Sig Cov. Source 3 looks very interesting indeed - do you have the link to get to the overall details etc so I can see reliable/independent etc? Nosebagbear (talk) 12:49, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I think some peoples would argue sources 1 and 5 have enough WP:SIGCOV, and the first ref I put in the article today was pretty decent. I first thought source 3 might have been ISBN: 9789351508632 or 6 - one of the Havard case studies ... but its isnt and is 3h - the handle permalink .. if I read it right the researcher seems to be Bhide - Savitribai Phule Pune University in an entity titled Study of change in composition and direction of exports by information technology companies in and around Pune.  As for source 4 the Pune COI dudes can dip into their pockets if necessary if I may be so bold as to suggest it! Djm-leighpark (talk) 19:27, 13 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment I have already recommended Delete. An article about Zensar may be appropriate, but THIS article, lacks suitable references. All I see is a list of news releases about acquisitions and a list of company divisions. If a company of this size has been written about, that needs to be added or I stand by my recommendation. David notMD (talk) 13:12, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I have done the necessary of the writings of the company as you wished. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 16:44, 13 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep There are sufficient references that meet the criteria for establishing notability including two book references. I've cleaned up the article also. Topic meets GNG and WP:NCORP.  HighKing++ 14:03, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
 * @ If ISBN: 9789351508632 is one of the books you are referring to it is in many ways non independent as it was co-authored by the then CEO Ganesh Natarajan, a key figure you wiped off the article in your clean up. We appear to be in a non-consensual disruptive content dispute out of the pressures of this AfD which perhaps goes to show how much disruption these AfD which hinge on the tiniest vagarancies on WP:GNG become.  The whole process seems like a stupidity!  How much effort does it take to do a nomination and how much effort does it take to overcome it. Djm-leighpark (talk) 19:25, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I am pleased to report and myself seem to be working co-operatively and HighKing has improved the early history in what I view as a very satsifactory direction.  Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:31, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
 * One point to note is we are now using the alternate isbn for 978-93-5150-862-5 for Start-Up to Global Success: The Zensar Story rather than 9789351508632. Djm-leighpark (talk) 01:11, 15 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Motion to close as keep in light of clear consensus. Sakaimover (talk) 21:44, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
 * - AfD discussions are only SNOWed Keep in very limited circumstances, functionally requiring unanimity. Give both a number of non-Keep !votes, and that a number of those who have said Keep didn't actually provide suitable justifications that level if fairly far off. Nosebagbear (talk) 23:12, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes ... its not a valid speedy keep. The article now addresses all issues raised above.  By all reasonable measures Zensar is run as an independent member of the RPG group, it was not associated with that group at times in the past, and it may not be associated with that group at a point in the future.  Therefore I suggest a redirect/merge to the RPG group is unreasonable at this point.Djm-leighpark (talk) 07:23, 18 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Neutral - I'm still not sure about the state of the sourcing, but with one good source and a couple that I can't make my mind up over, I feel insufficiently confident to cast a clean !vote. Nosebagbear (talk) 16:52, 18 October 2018 (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.