Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ESDS Software Solution Pvt. Ltd

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. Tone 08:52, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ESDS Software Solution Pvt. Ltd

[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)

Promotional article about a software company that appears to fail WP:CORPDEPTH and recreated as ESDS Software Solution Pvt. Ltd to conceal the article deletion history. It was previously created by a user who got blocked for advertisement issues [1], and was once declined in AfC [2]. The sources provided are routine press releases, interviews with founders, and article lacks in-depth coverage. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 06:11, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 06:11, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 06:11, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The current version is totally different from previous one. I saw many reliable references which indicate to pass WP:GNG. DMySon 16:31, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Please provide links to your WP:THREE best references. Generic statements about the existence of reliable references need to be supported or your !vote is likely to be ignored. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:41, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

However the notability of the subject is justified from various things such as multiple awards and invention of Covid 19 testing tool kit. There are various independent significant references from reliable resources but i provide a few of them: This, This, This, this, this, this. this, and this

Hi DMySon, what is required are references that meet the criteria for establishing notability and we are very strict on which types of references suffice. You've posted 8 references. I'll provide you with an analysis so that you can understand better why these references fail our criteria. There are two things to bear in mind. The first is that a reference must provide detailed information on the company (as per WP:CORPDEPTH) and the second is there must be "Independent Content" so that any detailed information must be attributable to a source unconnected with the company (as per WP:ORGIND).

This from the Economic Times is a mere mention in passing with a quote from the CEO. It does not contain any detailed information (fails WP:CORPDEPTH) and has no "Independent Content" (fails WP:ORGIND).
This "solution brief" from Intel is not "Independent Content". It was written by the company (the same CEO as above but who is now an Intel employee since they joined forces with Intel), therefore fails WP:ORGIND.
This from the Deccan Herald is based on a company announcement. This is obviously not "Independent Content" since much of the exact same text and quotations are used in multiple other articles dated at much the same time such as Express Computer, India Med Today, Times of India and lots more. Fails WP:ORGIND.
This from Hundustan Times, this from the World HRD Congress website and this from Economic Times is a mere mention in a list. It has no information on the company. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH.
This from the CIO section of the Economic Times discusses the company receiving the Graham Bell Award for Innovation in Cloud Technology for one of their products. It has no attributed journalist. This from the bellaward website displays photos from the night. I note that the Economic Times article is the same as this reference from Business World which uses the same photo and the same quotes and a lot of the same text. This shows that the references are not unique and therefore are based on information either provided by the Bell Award organization or provided by the company themselves, therefore fails WP:ORGIND. There is also no in-depth information on the company, fails WP:CORPDEPTH.

The awards themselves are not notable, many companies win awards such as these each year in lots of different countries and awards like these do not count towards notability. You state that these reference are "Independent" "Significant" references from "Reliable" resources. You must understand that the content of the references must meet the criteria. Most are not "Independent" at all as they rely on information provided by the company in their announcements and PR and that information is then regurgitated as an article - that is not "Independent Content" as per WP:ORGIND. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:41, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:35, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete With 30 references in the article you'd expect there'd be at least one that meets the criteria for establishing notability. Unfortunately, not. We have PR references based on company announcements such as a famous actress opening a regional office, or articles based on company announcements such as an AI tool that examines XRays for a coronavirus infection, or announcements that they received a patent or teamed up with another partner. Then we have the usual churnalism articles based on interviews with the founder/CEO where he talks about various topics such as his "den" or reducing stress or the "vision" of the company. We have mentions-in-passing and inclusion in various vendor lists. Finally there are some references to some awards, none of which are notable or significant enough to establish notability. References fail WP:ORGIND/ and/or WP:CORPDEPTH. Topic fails NCORP/GNG. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:41, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per HK. (t · c) buidhe 23:38, 5 October 2020 (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.