Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SQL Star

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 no consensus. T. Canens (talk) 01:26, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SQL Star

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

Delete. Non-notable. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:03, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, only primary sources, not notable. Maashatra11 (talk) 09:41, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:44, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:44, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - I have sourced most of the claims from RS now. It is a listed company in Bombay Stock Exchange and naturally the Indian Financial Media covers it. Click on the Gnews link above, you will find abundant coverage from Economic Times, Business Line, CNBC-TV18. Easily meets WP:CORP.--Sodabottle (talk) 06:24, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, vehemently. This is an IT services company.... Its three main divisions are Knowledge Services, Enterprise Services and e-Governance. Tossing around these meaningless labels is itself inconsistent with neutrality, and the article doesn't contain enough information to actually say what this business does. The "sources" added do not read like genuine third party coverage. The first one begins, "SQL Star has been on top of the crest of every wave since it was born as a company."[1] At any rate, coverage in business sources only establishes that this business exists: it does not show significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education, and as such this non-consumer tech business is not really an encyclopedia subject. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:31, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Er. The Economic Times is the biggest selling financial newspaper in India from the Times of India group with a daily circulation of 600,000 copies. If you wont accept a news report in ET. I dont know what you would accept as "genuine third party coverage". Again the news coverage should by the minimum satisfy WP:GNG. So mentioning the companies divisions are now NPOV. sigh.--Sodabottle (talk) 16:12, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can't speak for everything they print, but many business papers reprint press releases verbatim or with minimal editing, so not everything that appears in them is really independent, third party coverage. And the stories in The Economic Times do not read like independent, third party coverage. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:04, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your concern is noted. It is for the same reason i have not included any Moneycontrol/CNBC-TV18 sources in the article (there is much more coverage in CNBC, sourced from press releases). If it is partially/fully sourced from a press release, then it would be noted at the bottom of the story - as is the standard journalistic practice. And ET and Business Line are the top two business newspapers in India. For all their faults they dont reproduce press releases without attribution. About your concern that ET does not "feel" like third party coverage - thats their style of reporting. Business Line has a more sombre style, but ET and Financial Express (the other two of the top 3 Indian business dailies) have a more "flamboyant" style.--Sodabottle (talk) 03:31, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And if you are concerned about Business media coverage - the PTI is a news agency, DNA is a non-business daily (circ.400,000), Frontline is a news magazine, Express Computer is a IT trade magazine. All carry non-trivial reports on the company.--Sodabottle (talk) 03:43, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Sodabottle. Shyamsunder (talk) 19:57, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Sodabottle. -- Tinu Cherian - 18:02, 30 June 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.