Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shyam Steel

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. Just noting that only one editor here who is arguing for Keep has less than 200 edits, others are more experienced, particularly Bearian. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:47, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shyam Steel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

I declined a G5 as an IP had some copyediting, but that might be a sock of the original banned editor, and I don't know enough about Indian companies to determine if the organisation is notable or not. So here's a discussion. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:05, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:05, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and West Bengal. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:04, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:09, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:18, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I found the subject notable. Sources cited in the article like The Indian Express, Times of India, and several others are bylined, independent, and provide sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG. SATavr (talk) 14:04, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I was ready to go for delete, but there are actual facts and good sources. It certainly needs more work, but it appears to be notable on close examination. Bearian (talk) 09:30, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and keep improving. If sockpuppetry and editing by COI IP users continues, I would suggest protecting the article to allow editing only by autoconfirmed users in order to prevent further disruption. The article requires substantial improvement, particularly in the sections beyond the lead, and needs better referencing. However the subject appears to meet notability criteria with sufficient significant and critical coverage available through Google search results.Chanel Dsouza (talk) 07:19, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete None of the Keep !voters have identified any sources that meets WP:NCORP criteria for establishing notability, that is in-depth "independent content" about the orgnization. "Independent Content" means content which isn't entirely reliant on press releases, announcements, interviews or other content regurtitated from company sources. For example, this Times of India article referred to above is not Independent (as in "independent content") and is not in-depth. It is 7 sentences long and 2 of the sentences are directly attributed to the company, with the rest relying entirely on information provided by the company with no independent commentary or analysis, article fails both CORPDEPTH and ORGIND. Or this in New Indian Express is a single sentence - that is not in-depth information, fails CORPDEPTH. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:03, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP meets at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content". And i can see some references in Google search that pass the criteria. Syam Steel Case Study, Economic Times, The Times of India, Business Today and The Economic Times. B-Factor (talk) 06:12, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Let's take a look at the aforementioned sources in more detail and point out why they fail NCORP - happy to listen to a counter-argument if you disagree

• This "case study" is written by a Amazon AWS because the topic company uses their services. That isn't "independent content", that's advertising, fails ORGIND
• This from Economic Times is a press release from the company and fails ORGIND. For example, you can find the exact same article reguritated in different publications such as here, here, here and here.
• This repeats what the company announced (and acknowledges this in the article text) with no independent content (e.g. commentary/analysis/etc). You can find the same announcement regurgitated here. Fails ORGIND.
• This is a mere mention with no in-depth information (not even a complete sentence) about the company, fails CORPDEPTH.
• Finally, this article (which is 7 sentences) is also entirely based on company PR and contains no "independent content". Of the seven sentences, four are directly attributed to a company official. You can also find the exact same information in different publications such as this and this (which acknowledges it is PR). Fails ORGIND.

Regurgitated PR does not meet NCORP criteria. I'm happy to take another look if you can point out which paragraphs in which sources you believe contains independent content. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:14, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Research shows that it is 70 Years old company employing more than 2000 people. In old days there were no online media. But i am sure there must be some print news of the subject. And there are online references that support the notability criteria of this company. I suggest that this page should not be deletedAlmandavi (talk) 05:25, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment There appears to be an influx of editors here with less than 200 edits each, using similar reasoning but without providing any analysis of *why* particular sources meet NCORP, and without identifying sections within those source which contain in-depth independent content. AfD doesn't simply count !votes, and especially at NCORP-related AfD's where we require adequate sourcing. If the topic company is notable, we should at least be able to find sourcing and identify and explain why it meets the criteria. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:33, 8 May 2025 (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.