Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aftek
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. Shimeru (talk) 18:39, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Aftek (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable organization. Created and maintained by 2 WP:SPA accounts (Jayantw and Kavitachate12) that have been systematically adding link spam to other WP articles. Previously removed in 2009 as Aftek Infosys Calltech (talk) 13:00, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: Articles Aftek Ltd and Aftek Limited have been also removed in 2009 as spam. User:Aftekology has been blocked from WP for continuous spamming of WP after multiple warnings. New users mentioned above (along with anonymous IP's) are simply continuing the same practices. Calltech (talk) 15:14, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:19, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:20, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:20, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - It is a listed company in both Bombay Stock Exchange and National Stock Exchange. Meets WP:CORP. As a heavily traded midcap IT stock in India, has had continuous coverage in Indian financial media/analyst reports etc for fifteen years - Livemint, CNBC-TV18, Financial Express, Business standard and Businessline. I have
partiallyfully sourced and stubbed the article now.--Sodabottle (talk) 07:10, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I am attempting to give references to external websites from this page. (These will be websites not associated with the company). Also attempting to write this page with a neutral angle. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kavitachate12 (talk • contribs) 12:00, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: Kavitachate12 is a representative of Aftek Ltd per company blog. Calltech (talk) 15:00, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Calltech, a question- do you still feel the company itself does not meet our notability guidelines?. Has that concern has been addressed? (by the third party sources i added, sources shown etc). If so we can move on to helping Kavitachate12 to editing the article without violating any of our guidelines (avoid peacocking/promotion etc). I have already removed most of her edits to the article while stubbing, so the promotional/peacocking has gone out. --Sodabottle (talk) 17:58, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Being a publicly traded company by itself does not establish notability WP:ORG. WP:SPA users have been continously spamming WP with EL's. 3 previous articles have been removed for both lack of notability and advertisement within the last year. Based upon these facts, my concern has not been addressed and I would like other community input on this AFD. Thanks. Calltech (talk) 15:14, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sodabottle didn't say that being a publicly-traded company establishes notability, but that the sources do. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:14, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Being a publicly traded company by itself does not establish notability WP:ORG. WP:SPA users have been continously spamming WP with EL's. 3 previous articles have been removed for both lack of notability and advertisement within the last year. Based upon these facts, my concern has not been addressed and I would like other community input on this AFD. Thanks. Calltech (talk) 15:14, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Calltech, a question- do you still feel the company itself does not meet our notability guidelines?. Has that concern has been addressed? (by the third party sources i added, sources shown etc). If so we can move on to helping Kavitachate12 to editing the article without violating any of our guidelines (avoid peacocking/promotion etc). I have already removed most of her edits to the article while stubbing, so the promotional/peacocking has gone out. --Sodabottle (talk) 17:58, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The Google News archive search results linked above, some of which are now in the article as sources, clearly show that the subject passes the general notability guideline. Issues with editor behaviour can be addressed by (semi-)protection, blocking and/or external link blacklisting - deletion of an article on an obviously notable subject is not an appropriate response to such issues. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:14, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Rabbabodrool (talk) 20:22, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The nominator made several different statements. Which particular ones do you think are valid reasons for deletion? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:53, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Significant coverage in 5 reliable sources, so it meets WP:GNG. Alzarian16 (talk) 13:57, 24 April 2010 (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.