Appin (company): The subject of the article is in legal litigation with Reuters the publisher of the major source cited in the article.  Reuters has taken down the report from its website in compliance with an Indian court order.  See Reuters editor’s note here [ [55] ].  Other sources cited all quoted the Reuters report that is no longer in public domain.  In this [ [56] ], SentinelLab quoted the Reuters report as its own source: “After an extensive review of this data, brought to our attention by Reuters investigative journalists”,  then this [ [57] ] quoted SentinelLab as its own source all linking back to the Reuters report.  These sources can no longer be relied upon as the original source of information has been taken down by a court order.  The remaining sources in the article only reported the court order forcing Reuters to take down the article.  Metroick ( talk ) 05:12, 15 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep This company is detailed in this earlier Reuters report [58] which was not taken down.  Further, the court order and the impugned report are discussed here [59] and here [60] .  The litigation is publicly acknowledged by Reuters.  And, as noted in the 404 Media article the article is still on Internet Archive.  That should be enough for notability.  There may be some basis to say the facts in the impugned article aren't verifiable, because the article is no longer truly published pending court scrutiny, but that's a pretty slender reed.  As to the issue of libel, although I can not find the Indian court order it was a preliminary order.  That likely means substantive determinations on the Reuters article (again, only the one report which was taken down, not the still-live one linked above) are yet-to-come.  So it's highly unlikely, and certainly not reported anywhere I can see, the report has been found to be libelous.  If libel is found by the court at some later date, this article could be reconsidered on that basis.  Oblivy ( talk ) 05:56, 15 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime , Companies , Computing ,  and India .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 07:31, 15 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Courts aren't arbiters of truth.  However, since the company primarily seems to be notable for the article and the subsequent lawsuit, and 95% of the sources I can find online are about that, the article should be moved to Appin hacking allegation lawsuit .  Or something more elegant than that.  Cortador ( talk ) 09:25, 15 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It seems there's still a fair amount of reports on the hacking.  I'll change my vote to keep .  Cortador ( talk ) 14:23, 16 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  I'll set aside arguments about GNG and NCORP (both are met) since they're not brought up in the nom.  I don't think it can meet WP:LIBEL if it's verifiable and cited to reliable sources, and Reuters is a pretty top-tier RS, whose report is based not on one or two anonymous sources but on an investigation by three reporters who have a history of covering this subject area (one of whom has won an award for it).  Reuters says it stands by its reporting, and RS that have covered the company after Reuters's removal (like 404media) do not treat the reporting as suspect, rather they blame lack of press freedom in India.  It reminds me of Pierre-sur-Haute military radio station , where we kept the article despite legal threats (against a Wikipedian, not just a news outlet).  I would also oppose a move since the "main" story is the revelations, not the Reuters lawsuit about the revelations.  DFlhb ( talk ) 13:39, 15 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : The New Yorker reported on the issue, article is more than adequately sourced.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 14:18, 15 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - As author.  Meets WP:GNG .  My personal take on this is that India is trying to scrub a report into the darker side of its intelligence aparatus.  I don't know why we'd want to help them with that.  The irony here is that in trying to scrub the report, the company becomes more notable for trying to scrub the report.  Streisand effect ?  NickCT ( talk ) 16:15, 15 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Notable company.  Article title change is not needed.  Capitals00 ( talk ) 05:24, 16 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete This is libelous, the main source of the article has been deleted which was Reuters.  Most of the publications from the websites were gotten from Reuters and since the reuters source is down, this should be considered no longer credible.  Chaosbrigader64 ( talk ) 09:41, 16 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Have not evaluated notability as of yet, but as LIBEL is handled by WP:OFFICE , leaning speedy keep as AfD is not competent to decide on such an issue.  Alpha3031 ( t • c ) 10:50, 17 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy/snow keep .  I'm standing by my assessment that there is nothing for the community to do here.  Offline sources are still sources.  Alpha3031 ( t • c ) 03:40, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete for the meantime pending the final determination of the lawsuit against Reuters article that has now been taken down.  It can be recreated after the final verdict if it goes in favour of Reuters which is confident in its journalists and their reporting by stating that it stands by its reporting.  The issue here is not about the notability of the company but the lawsuit.  It will not be surprising if the company sue the other sources cited in the article as some of them quoted Reuters reporting as their source and if that happens it may lead to the taking down of such press articles thereby stripping this article of its major sources.  Lagdo22 ( talk ) 12:02, 17 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep The accusations were provided by Reuters, which is one of the highest regarded RS, and they continue to stand by their reporting.  Since the article was pulled down by only a prima facie court order, Reuters has not had an opportunity to defend their reporting.  If it turns out the content was falsified Reuters would retract the article and the article can be reconsidered then.  The sources currently not being available due to court order is not an issue because WP:LINKROT is a known, very common, and already solved problem on Wikipedia.  Jumpytoo Talk 20:11, 17 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep This company is using bullying tactics to remove online mentions of its conduct ( https://www.thedailybeast.com/who-is-killing-all-these-stories-about-rajat-khare-controversial-tech-mogul ).  WP should be a repository for 'items of encyclopedic note,' not 'items of encyclopedic note unless wealthy, powerful firms credibly accused of criminal acts would prefer not to have mentioned.' -- Doctorow ( talk ) 23:08, 19 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I have added four additional citations, two extensively discussing the company and two about the controversy.  If (a big if) there was any serious question about whether the court-ordered suppression of the Reuters story somehow defeats notability, this should put an end to it.  Oblivy ( talk ) 01:56, 18 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep: while the original Reuters story was taken down, the takedown is now itself subject to significant independent coverage in reliable sources [61] .  MarioGom ( talk ) 19:44, 20 December 2023 (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.

Discussion outcome: keep