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. Sandstein 10:51, 7 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Persistent Systems

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

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

The company's digital marketing team members are directly involved in editing this page. The user Pritamgandhi happens to be on the company payroll who did unreferenced edits to showcase recent developments such as the resignation of their CEO. (Redacted). This page is nothing but a promotional activity for this entity ( WP:PROMO). Please do note, this wiki page is active since 2004, without having any encyclopedic value. The company may be listed on the stock market but that doesn't prove notability ( WP:GNG, WP:NCORP). Hence, calling for an AfD discussion. - Hatchens ( talk) 14:58, 10 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Hatchens ( talk) 14:58, 10 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Hatchens ( talk) 14:58, 10 August 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete This article does not pass WP:NCORP or WP:GNG. It was difficult finding sources because the term "Persistent Systems" is used by academic writers in completely different contexts. This caused lots of results in Google Scholar and JSTOR, but none that met WP:SIRS. When I did a Google News search, I only found press releases (which are not independent), and what WP:CORPDEPTH deems "trivial coverage" like the resignation of a CEO for unspecified reasons and stock price information. There might be WP:RS concerning their work with the US Army, but I was not able to find independent or significant coverage. Z1720 ( talk) 17:36, 10 August 2020 (UTC) reply

After reviewing the sources listed above, I have decided to stay with my !delete vote. WP:CORPDEPTH says "Quantity does not determine significance. It is the quality of the content that governs." Regarding the CEO resignation, I agree with a commentator that it "was kinda a big deal" but none of the sources say why it was significant. Until that happens, I will consider it "the hiring, promotion, or departure of personnel," which is listed as trivial coverage in WP:CORPDEPTH.

Regarding routine business coverage, I considered if the sources were describing "expansions, acquisitions, mergers, sale, or closure of the business" (deemed trivial in WP:CORPDEPTH) or "ongoing media coverage focusing on a product or organization," (deemed significant in WP:CORPDEPTH.) In my opinion, these sources are trivial because they do not describe what is significant about the CEO leaving. I would change my vote if sources state a significant reason or impact on leaving the company.

Regarding the interviews, I don't see how these talk about Persistent Systems. The first one is under a paywall, but the second interview is more about IBM's Watson and the third doesn't give any specifics or facts about how the company was created or expanded. Regarding the 10K employees and long history, these facts do not establish notability on their own. Instead, these facts are the basis for reliable sources to cover this topic, thus fulfiling our notability requirement. Without this middle step, we cannot establish notability. I will regretfully remain with a delete vote until a reliable source gives information that fulfils significant coverage defined by WP:CORPDEPTH. Z1720 ( talk) 20:36, 18 August 2020 (UTC) reply

• Keep: (Without prejudice to blocking any COI editor and strong emphasis to keep the advert tag on the article, as is). Keep because - Listed company with an M-cap of ₹7,547 crore (US$900 million) and approx 10k employees. Nominator is right that there is no inherent notability for such listed companies as per WP:LISTED. But the claim of nominator, this wiki page is active since 2004, without having any encyclopedic value disregards all the !votes made by editors of the previous afds and keep close by the closing admin. Coming to this afd, the CEO resignation was kinda a big deal covered by reliable sources in India - [1], [2], [3]. Anyways, I'd classify the sources cited/found as follows,

Routine business coverage, but they include some independent commentary and analysis- [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10]

Interviews with Management with some independent comments/analysis , [11], [12], [13] - (Last one is cited as press release but in my opinion its not. It's kind of a longish interview with the founder with some independent commentary in the lead).

They also keep getting tonnes of trivial coverage like [14], [15], too many to list here.

In most of the sources the quotes by the management (not independent) are easily distinguishable from the rest of the independent content. Imo, on a combined basis, there is sigcov for a keep. - hako9 ( talk) 23:52, 10 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Hako9, out of all the media mentions/citations which you stated - only two of the sources pass borderline reliability; BloombergQuint and The Hindu Business Line - as per WP:RSPSOURCES. Why borderline pass? because, both the sources are the sister publications of Bloomberg and The Hindu (which are the only Reliable Sources included in the list). And, if we delve a little bit more, all the news article links (which you have shared) lack neutrality factor because most of them are speaking about the company's success related to certain events or mergers/acquisitions. Due diligence is required. Hatchens ( talk) 04:19, 14 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Hatchens, Economic Times, Money Control and Livemint are reliable too, even though they are not listed in WP:RSPSOURCES. SerChevalerie ( talk) 04:30, 14 August 2020 (UTC) reply

SerChevalerie, That's your assumption. If these sources are not discussed or included in the list (based on consensus), then we cannot simply assume your point of view. However, even if we go ahead with your assumption, these links may help in terms of WP:VERIFY but from another angle, they are actually violating WP:NPOV. Please do note, These policies jointly determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in Wikipedia articles, and, because they work in harmony, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another. Editors are strongly encouraged to familiarize themselves with all three. Hatchens ( talk) 04:45, 14 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Familiarize yourself with WP:RSPMISSING. Start a discussion on The Economic Times, Quint and Business Line at RSN if you want to find where they land. Due diligence is required. Yes. You need to diligently read the sources. - hako9 ( talk) 04:43, 14 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Hako9, Thank you for the suggestion, and indeed the interpretation of sources can go both ways. As per WP:RSPMISSING - A source's absence from the list does not imply that it is any more or less reliable than the sources that are present. But, if the entity is notable, then I believe it might have some references coming from this WP:RSPSOURCES list or from Google Scholar or JSTOR. But, this is not the case. Besides that, the whole article is like a WP:STUB which never had any expansion in the last 16 years because it has no encyclopedic value in the first place. Let's not digress from this AfD discussion and try to derive a consensus. Hatchens ( talk) 04:58, 14 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Hatchens, lack of expansion does not imply failing of WP:GNG. SerChevalerie ( talk) 05:00, 14 August 2020 (UTC) reply

SerChevalerie, You can keep going on picking up my statements and make your assumptions. It's a free world. But, in the end, I will advocate for the actual acceptance, which should be, derived from general consensus supported by Wikipedia guidelines (holistically speaking). That's the primary objective of all AfDs. Hatchens ( talk) 05:11, 14 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Stop tagging me and stop wasting my time. - hako9 ( talk) 05:02, 14 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Hako9, I guess we are discussing?, with civility. I'm sorry if I have caused any inconvenience. From, now onwards, will not tag. Regards. Hatchens ( talk) 05:14, 14 August 2020 (UTC) reply

• Keep. Clearly a notable topic. But, leave targeted guidance for resolving COI, and other quality issues. No reason to not have them be resolved when the page is active. Recommend reaching out to appropriate project group if needed for SME assists. Ktin ( talk) 21:52, 13 August 2020 (UTC) reply

• Keep, per Hako9 and Ktin. Topic is clearly notable. The company has 10k+ employees. Issues can always be (and must be) resolved through some cleanup. There are a lot of sources available, as we can see in this discussion. SerChevalerie ( talk) 21:58, 13 August 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete I have checked the references. I used to write press releases so I can smell one a mile away and I have seen nothing but press releases and regurgitated PR material. The is WP:ADMASQ and needs to go. Fiddle Faddle 11:31, 14 August 2020 (UTC) reply
• Special Note - SerChevalerie has deregistered itself from Wikipedia without putting a redirect, For more details, click here and also check link. - Hatchens ( talk) 03:41, 16 August 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete: References are promotional, article appears to be editied by employees. Whiteguru ( talk) 08:53, 18 August 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep, as noted in WP:LISTED, "Consensus has been that notability is not automatic in this (or any other) case. However, sufficient independent sources almost always exist for such companies, so that notability can be established using the primary criterion discussed above.". With 10k employees and a long history (founded 1990), this is one of those cases. Which is prolly also why it's the third nom ( WP:STICK). II | ( t - c) 12:24, 18 August 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.