Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ValueLabs Inc.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
- 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. LFaraone 02:49, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
ValueLabs Inc.
- ValueLabs Inc. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article about a company where the article creator works. Does not meet
WP:CORP Dejakh
~[[User talk:Dejakh|talk!
- Keep The article does meet WP:CORP with independent and reliable sources, please go through the sources again. Thanks- tausif(talk) 18:42, 24 March 2013 (UTC) ]]•did! 12:18, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Errm, what?? I have checked all the sources listed, and not a single one of them does more than just mention ValueLabs in passing, or include its name in a list. A couple of them don't even mention it at all. There is absolutely no substantial coverage cited at all, in any kind of source, reliable or not, independent or not. talk) 12:17, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- This reference covers significant enough. Thanks! tausif(talk) 07:13, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It is a four-sentence report on another business extending its trading range, with two passing mentions of ValueLabs. talk) 17:04, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It is a four-sentence report on another business extending its trading range, with two passing mentions of ValueLabs.
- Errm, what?? I have checked all the sources listed, and not a single one of them does more than just mention ValueLabs in passing, or include its name in a list. A couple of them don't even mention it at all. There is absolutely no substantial coverage cited at all, in any kind of source, reliable or not, independent or not.
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. As I said above, there is no substantial coverage in any of the cited sources, and my searches have also failed to find anything suitable in independent sources. Not notable. talk) 12:17, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Madguy000 has added new references, which gives substantial coverage in the cited source. Would this be good? tausif(talk) 17:04, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The sources that Madguy000 has added are as follows: a reference to www.valuelabs.com, which is not a reliable source; a reference to www.thehindu.com, which makes no mention of ValueLabs except for a list of 19 names, one of which is the name of someone who works for ValueLabs; an article about office design, in which the company that designed ValueLab's office space features prominently, and ValueLab is therefore mentioned several times, but only as the business that uses that office space, not as a primary subject of the article; an article in the Financial Express, the essential content of which is that ValueLabs has set itself a target for increasing its turnover, which has all the appearance of being a write-up of a press release, and in any case is only coverage of a trivial issue, not the sort of substantial coverage required by Wikipedia's ntoability guidelines. talk) 17:01, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The sources that Madguy000 has added are as follows: a reference to www.valuelabs.com, which is not a reliable source; a reference to www.thehindu.com, which makes no mention of ValueLabs except for a list of 19 names, one of which is the name of someone who works for ValueLabs; an article about office design, in which the company that designed ValueLab's office space features prominently, and ValueLab is therefore mentioned several times, but only as the business that uses that office space, not as a primary subject of the article; an article in the Financial Express, the essential content of which is that ValueLabs has set itself a target for increasing its turnover, which has all the appearance of being a write-up of a press release, and in any case is only coverage of a trivial issue, not the sort of substantial coverage required by Wikipedia's ntoability guidelines.
- Madguy000 has added new references, which gives substantial coverage in the cited source. Would this be good? tausif(talk) 17:04, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Delete.The article seems fine though even though the references are really bad.But it does meet ]
- 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.