Talk:Coforge

This article was nominated for deletion on 22 August 2025. The result of the discussion was keep.

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Companies Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CompaniesWikipedia:WikiProject CompaniesTemplate:WikiProject Companiescompany

Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Companies To-do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Wikipedia:Requested articles/Business and economics/Companies
Assess : Category:Unassessed company articles
Copyedit : Category:Company articles needing attention
Infobox : Category:Company articles needing infoboxes
Maintain : Portal:Companies
Stubs : Help expand stub articles located at Category:Company stubs
Other :
- Tag company articles with the {{portal|Companies}} template
- Tag company talk pages with the {{WikiProject Companies}} project banner
- Answer requests for comments

India Low‑importance

	India portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article relates to the region of South Asia (India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal), broadly construed, including but not limited to history, politics, ethnicity, and social groups, a contentious topic. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator.

COI edit request

Header added by GoldRomean (talk) 19:26, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined.

COI tag which is added since 2022 and the same is added by a sock series. And these socks have tried to add negative content intentionally on the page multiple times. the article to be deleted multiple times.
Since the page has edited by many other experienced editors and COI content is removed almost, the COI tag should not be there on the page. Thank You.

Nathoor (talk) 07:34, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: Ironically, requesting editor is now sock blocked. GoldRomean (talk) 19:27, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Made Update to remove Deficiencies

The earlier versions had deficiencies.

I used a tool for wikitext formatting and light copyediting only. I did not use it to generate claims, references, or analysis.

Every substantive statement in the edit is supported by reliable, published sources already cited in the article.

If you believe any specific sentence is not supported by its citation, please point to the exact line and I will adjust or remove it. Otherwise, reverting solely on "looks like LLM" is not a content-based objection. Atanu4ever (talk) 05:35, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Upgraded to remove deficiencies

The earlier versions had deficiencies and hence upgraded.

I used a tool only for wikitext formatting and copyediting which is allowed by Wikipedia policies. I didn’t use it to invent claims, generate references, or add analysis.

Every substantive statement I added is backed by reliable, published sources that are already cited in the article.

If you think any specific sentence isn’t properly supported by its citation (or isn’t neutral / gives undue weight), please point to the exact line or diff and I’ll fix it or remove it. Otherwise, I’d rather we focus on the actual content and sourcing than on guessing what tool was used.

Let’s keep the discussion here on the article talk page. If you want a slightly more assertive closing line, swap the last sentence for:

Let’s keep this on the talk page and avoid trading reverts. Atanu4ever (talk) 05:44, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You'll need to explain your edits in more detail than Fixed deficiencies. Content written by me, code for formatting generated by an LLM, especially when removing nearly 5,000 bytes of content that was largely supported by independent sources. In contrast, your revised version relies almost entirely on WP:Primary sources.

Yuvaank (talk) 02:40, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]