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. T. Canens ( talk) 11:16, 19 January 2017 (UTC) reply

Intellect Design

Intellect Design (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

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

Clear advertising that was maneuvered and conceived by the company itself as it's clear this is only something they would so blatantly care to advertise about themselves, and it shows since the listed websites are clearly republished PR and there are all the signs of it, and it's worse when searches found others, including ones that explicitly state it was PR, so it's such blatancy, we can't possibly mistake it as "likely coverage". Next, we've established policies about this and how advertising is removed, with a long following of such deletions, it's clear this was only ever started for advertising and it also shows since it's part of a considerably large user-led advertising campaign. As it is, comparing the history shows either tag-teaming employees or the same person using multiple accounts, both of which emulate advertising. SwisterTwister talk 18:27, 29 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:57, 29 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:57, 29 December 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete -- purely corporate spam on a subject with no indications of notability or significance. K.e.coffman ( talk) 10:39, 8 January 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep Lots of media coverage. Significant Revenue and known company. Article writing can be improved. Light2021 ( talk) 20:17, 8 January 2017 (UTC) reply

Which policy is involved here though? Because the sources as examined are in fact clear business PR announcements and stories. SwisterTwister talk 23:09, 9 January 2017 (UTC) reply

Its a public listed well known company beyond any doubts. You can change content or quality of writing in an article. But in my opinion or in my analysis I have found this company as worth keeping. If you come up with more analysis, I will change my vote. Light2021 ( talk) 04:35, 10 January 2017 (UTC) reply

• Keep - passes WP:ORG with plenty of coverage in reliable sources. A quick search brings up even more coverage than what's in the article. Stickee (talk) 12:57, 14 January 2017 (UTC) reply

GNG is a guideline, not a policy, so which policies states that instant sourcing means acceptance? Because the sources I see here are clear published and republished business PR. SwisterTwister talk 18:36, 15 January 2017 (UTC) reply

• Keep - quite a lot of coverage from multiple media outlets, passes WP:NCOMP— UY Scuti ^Talk 16:18, 15 January 2017 (UTC) reply
• Comment to closer -The comments above are not policy based as they simply say "there's sources" but actually examining the above shows nothing but clear published and republished business announcements, including some that are clear paid press (the publications have a notorious history of accepting paid press covertly as it is) thus WP:NOT still applies. As it is, the first ones have a clear "The company's spokesman tells us", "The company's website informed us", etc (this not even satisfying guideline WP:CORPDEPTH). Actually, now looking at the link closely, I see there's no mention of this company there at all, and it's about an actress instead, "Koushani Mukherjee". SwisterTwister talk 18:36, 15 January 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Promotional, and of very dubious notability. The references are notices, or press releases, none of them independent substantial reporting and useless to show notability; their unreliability is shown by the degree they copy each other, all based upon the same press releases:

1 The Economic Times., is essentially a quote from the managing director

2 indiainfoline.com is almost entirely a considerably longer quote for the MD.

3 bsintelligence.com is a mere notice that one (minor) bank bought their product

4 Hubbis is a potted bio of the MD from a "Wealth Management Forum", and not even a honest one, because it claims world-wide importance, which is not attested by any other reference

5 bobsguide is a PR notice that they are a partner of a notable firm

6 is a self-admitted "verbatim transcript" of an interview where one of their sales executives, who made whatever statements he pleased--another piece of PR, just what a sales manager would have written on a company web page

7 ChennaiPatrika is a PR, and just an announcement of annual results.

8 another Economic Times article, isn't even primarily about them " "Why companies like Intellect Design Arena " though they

9 is placement on a list, as is 12.

10. is a general article which mentions them in part of one sentence

11 is a broker's report on the company; so is 13.

14 is a PR from Business Wire which is not a true news service but a mechanism for distributing press releases. To include it shows the contributor either doesn't realize that or doesn't care.

So there is no substantial information about them that has any real source other than the company, which therefore fails the GNG.

The promotional nature of the coverage is also seen by listing all the higher executives, all of whom call themselves CEOs. The company is small by international standards, only $129 million capital. It is to be sure a public company, traded on the Indian stock Exchange, which is not a major exchange that guarantees coverage here, like the lSE. The editor claiming a lot of additional sources should look at them, the search they made is on Koushani Mukherjee, who is not even an executive of the company; I do not know why they thought it relevant. DGG ( talk ) 10:37, 16 January 2017 (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.