Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Epack Prefab

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. After discarding the clearly canvassed (COI/UPE?) votes, I see a P&G-based consensus to delete. This is without even taking into account the unanimous consensus in the recent, previous AfD for an almost identical version of the article. Owen× ☎ 21:42, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Epack Prefab

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Epack Prefab

Article about an Indian company which manufactures pre-engineered buildings (PEBs), also known as prefabricated buildings, but does not establish corporate notability. None of the references are significant coverage by independent sources. The references are mostly press releases or paid pieces by the company or interviews with the company, and some of them are about the technology rather than the company.

Reference Number	Reference	Comments	Independent	Significant	Reliable	Secondary
1	livemint.com	A corporate profile	No	Yes	?	No
2	Times of India	An interview with an officer in the course of an article	Yes	No. Passing mention.	No	?
3	news.abplive.com	An interview	No	Yes	?	No
4	businesstoday.in	An interview about how prefab building reduces pollution	No	Not about the company, but about the technology	Yes	No
5	www.tv9hindi.com	An interview about prefab building	No	Not about the company, but about the technology	Yes?	No
6	www.zeebiz.com	An interview about the company	No	Yes	Yes?	No
7	www.etnownews.com	An interview with some promotional content	No	Yes	Yes?	No
8	auto.economictimes.indiatimes.com	A feature story, reads as if it was paid	No	Yes	No. Times of India.	No
9	infra.economictimes.indiatimes.com	Another feature story, may be paid	No	Yes	No. Times of India.	No
10	www.financialexpress.com	Reads like a corporate profile	No	Yes	Yes	No
11	www.adgully.com	An ad in an advertising web site, corporate information	No	Yes	?	No
12	www.constructionworld.in	A press release	No	Yes	?	No
13	www.outlookbusiness.com	An interview about prefab building	No	No. Not about the company, but about the technology	?	No
14	The Hindu	A press release	No	Don't know. Only able to view lead of article due to paywall, but that was enough to see that it is a press release.	Yes	No
15	indianinfrastructure.com	Article about prefab building. Doesn't mention the company.	Yes	No. Not about the company, but about the technology	Yes	No?
16	www.zeebiz.com	An article about prefab building. No mention of company.	Yes	No. Not about the company, but about the technology	Yes?	No
17	www.business-standard.com	A press release about corporate plans.	No	Yes	Yes	No

This article was originally created in article space by a now-blocked promotional editor, and moved back to draft space by the blocking administrator. This article appears to be identical to the draftified article by another editor. There are concerns about covert advertising, but it isn't necessary to know whether there is covert advertising, because there isn't coverage that satisfies corporate notability. The author of this version of the article has now been blocked as a sockpuppet.

The draft can be left standing because drafts are not checked for notability. In view of the history of sockpuppetry and conflict of interest, salting is probably in order in article space. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:25, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Engineering, and Uttar Pradesh. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:25, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subject lack notability Per WP:Notability_(organizations_and_companies) Tesleemah (talk) 05:40, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I’d like to address Reference Number 5. It was mentioned that this is just an interview about prefab building, but after reviewing it carefully, I see it as an independent article. The article discusses EPACK Prefab’s role in the prefabricated construction sector. In it, the director of EPACK Prefab highlights how prefabrication allows for up to 90% of the work to be completed in a factory, which significantly speeds up the construction process. From my perspective, this is more than an interview—it’s an article that explores prefab construction and specifically references Epack Prefab company's name. Suhailjav (talk) 04:34, 7 November 2024 (UTC) — Suhailjav (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 03:05, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I’d also like to address Reference Number 1. It is mentioned that this is an interview, but after a thorough review, I believe it’s actually an independent article. The article covers the growth of warehousing in Visakhapatnam and includes references to EPACK Prefab’s contributions within this sector. It highlights the company’s involvement in prefab construction for warehousing, showing how our solutions support this expanding industry. From my perspective, this is more than an interview—it’s an article that provides insight into warehousing growth while specifically mentioning EPACK Prefab’s role. Suhailjav (talk) 04:49, 7 November 2024 (UTC) — Suhailjav (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 03:05, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Reference Number 10. It was noted that this reference 'reads like a corporate profile,' but upon reviewing it, I see it as an independent article focused on EPACK Prefab’s #WasteToWorth campaign. The article discusses the company’s sustainability and recycling initiatives rather than promoting its profile. It specifically highlights EPACK Prefab’s efforts to encourage eco-friendly practices within the prefabrication industry. In my view, this piece serves as a report on the campaign and EPACK Prefab’s commitment to sustainable practices, rather than a corporate profile. Suhailjav (talk) 04:50, 7 November 2024 (UTC) — Suhailjav (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 03:05, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This may be eligible for WP:G4 as it closely resembles the page deleted in July following the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EPACK Prefab. Yuvaank (talk) 17:58, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per WP:HEYMANN. The subject certainly meets WP:LISTED, WP:NCORP and Wikipedia's General Notability Guidelines with significant coverage in independent reliable sources, including the EPACK Prefab to set up pre-engineered building manufacturing unit in Tirupati district of Andhra Pradesh written by V. Raghavendra from The Hindu which is a reliable source in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#The Hindu, Vishakhapattanam records 265% increase in warehousing] written by Umamaheswara Rao from The Times of India generally count as reliable and Can pre-engineered building construction help reduce air pollution in Delhi? written by Nidhi Singal from Business Today magazine which is also a reliable resource. 2409:40D0:2022:3A4:A8BB:13DD:AC2:204F (talk) 08:23, 11 November 2024 (UTC) — 2409:40D0:2022:3A4:A8BB:13DD:AC2:204F (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 00:07, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Appealing to WP:HEY makes less than zero sense here. The article is literally the exact same at this time as it was at the time it was nominated for deletion. I would also note that The Times of India is not presumed generally reliable; see WP:TOI. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 03:03, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject has received significant coverage in national media. The page appears to have passed WP:NPP. Additionally, it satisfies WP:GNG and meets WP:LISTED.Wasisi Cyclelove (talk) 18:16, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 08:48, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Resources passes WP:GNG and it also meets WP:LISTED. AmericanY (talk) 06:51, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Robert McClenon's nomination statement, this fails NCORP and no references have been presented in this debate or in the article that meet this threshold. Red-tailed hawk points out that TOI is not a reliable source for Wikipedia purposes, which refutes the only comment in this debate which attempted to present a refutation to the nomination. I also find the multiple editors with <100 edits in this debate to be quite unusual, and ask the closer place the appropriate weight on their weak and non-P&G-compliant arguments. Daniel (talk) 15:02, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Robert's source analysis is convincing. Furthermore, the multiple "keep" !voters invoking WP:LISTED are mistaken. The only EPACK company that is publicly listed is EPACK Durable Ltd. (https://epackdurable.com/investor-relations/). EPACK Prefab is a different subsidiary of the EPACK Group (see here: https://www.epack.in/group-overview), which is why we're not seeing the usual WP:SIGCOV in reliable, independent sources that we see for listed firms. The sources here are limited to trivial mentions, trade publications, press releases, other primary sources and other content that falls short of the requirements of WP:NCORP. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:53, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 21:45, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- It has multiple reliable sources that are independent of the subject to pass Notability. [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6] 182.0.201.247 (talk) 12:38, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.