Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Suminter India Organics

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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:29, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suminter India Organics

Totally unclear what the indication of notability exactly is in this article. It was CSD'd but denied. Google news sows no recent hits. Archive of google news has a few hits, but the top ones are walled off to non-logged in users. The second link I found appeared to be a press release. No indications of notability in the article, certainly no references. Shadowjams (talk) 08:45, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 09:17, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There one in-depth coverage piece and eight trivial pieces that I've been able to here, so doesn't pass WP:CORP or WP:GNG. Definitely, the article as it stands today isn't supported by reliable source material. -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 17:39, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I was the one who tagged the article for CSD, as I wasn't able to find sufficient sources. No refs + no indication of notability + COI. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 00:04, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rework/Keep: Dare, an Indian magazine on entrepreneurship, had recent article about them on July 1. See also Frontier Natural Products Co-op for an article about a similar US-based company that was allowed to stay. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.72.149.12 (talk) 08:59, 23 July 2009 (UTC) — 116.72.149.12 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep: Page is looking better now with references etc. Could still need some more info around how this fits within the whole organic food movement. Other relevance: Endeavor entrepreneur selection, see the press release on Reuters. @SpacemanSpiff, DoriSmith: Do you agree? ChristophD81 (talk) 09:22, 25 July 2009 (UTC) — ChristophD81 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Comment - Your very first edit is to AfD, and only other edits to the related article? Press releases are not WP:RS. Shadowjams (talk) 10:12, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - No, press releases do not count toward showing notability, I haven't seen anything to change my opinion yet. -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 12:03, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Sorry, I can't say that I agree either. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦
- Comment - I respectfully disagree. Please help me understand the difference to Frontier Natural Products Co-op. Why does that article exist? It seems to be like an advertising piece and I wonder whether we apply double standards here to Indian vs. American companies. I see a number of non-PR articles -- I don't know why they don't appear on top of the Google searches, but here they are:
  - Businessworld article about several success stories of Indians coming back to India; this includes Sameer/Suminter.
  - Above is mentioned an artice about Suminter in the Dare magazine.
  - Here's another article about them.
  - Hindu Business Line article about the Nexus investment
  - An article about Nexus investment in Suminter
  - Article on the thinkchangeindia.org blog. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.72.149.12 (talk) 08:45, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly suggest that you read Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions and Other stuff exists. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 00:16, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the hint, Dori. SpacemanSpiff, you said that press releases don't count. To the best of my knowledge, the links I mentioned in response to your argument do not constitute press releases. Please let me know what you think about these articles. Dori, same for you -- your agreement with SpacemanSpiff's argument that PRs don't count is based on the fact that I indeed used PRs. I'm not sure this is the case. Please read the articles I linked to. ChristophD81 (talk) 12:53, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have re-read [Wikipedia:Notability]. SpacemanSpiff, you suggest that notability is given by what Google News puts into its top search results. Notability requires, agmonst other things, "Significant coverage [which] is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material"^[1] and it "does not need to have ongoing coverage from news sources"^[2]. The articles I mentioned are independent from Suminter or Nexus (its principal investor), and they have Suminter as either their main topic or as one important topic among just a few. They are not all from within the last week, but they are also not just a short burst of news activity. ChristophD81 (talk) 12:53, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have read through all the links, the Dare piece is fine (which I didn't find before), the BW article is a trivial mention, the investment notes are trivial mentions and the rest are blogs that do not conform to reliable source requirements. -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 20:12, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree with SpacemanSpiff with some additions: the Reuters link is a press release. the Organic Consumers link doesn't mention Suminter, the Intellecap link and Sankalp link are both press releases, and the Fairtradenap.net link is just a database with no real information. There's nothing in those sources that makes me change my mind. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 20:59, 29 July 2009 (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.

^ [Wikpedia:Notability]
^ [Wikpedia:Notability]

[1] [Wikpedia:Notability]

[2] [Wikpedia:Notability]

[1]

[2]