Alim Industries Limited: M.parvage ( talk ) 02:44, 11 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Companies .  M.parvage ( talk ) 02:44, 11 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 05:58, 11 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete I am unable to locate any references that meet NCORP criteria for establishing notability.  HighKing ++ 21:04, 11 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep this company, while small, appears to be a significant participant in the market for domestically produced agricultural machinery in Bangladesh.  The company gets regular coverage in the Daily Star and has been mentioned in more than one scholarly article about agricultural mechanization.  I've added a bit to the article.  It's a bit thin, but considering the limited scope of the article there is enough out there to support the text and to meet notability.  The nominator doesn't say what the broken link is , but it appears to be the gonews24.com cite which (based on Google translate) appears to be unrelated to this company.  If someone with local language capability wants to delete it that would be welcome.  As to the question of citing the company website, there's nothing wrong with using a primary source, although it's not preferred, if notability is shown through secondary sources.  I would encourage @ M.parvage to familiarize himself with WP:BEFORE before making further nominations for AfD.  I found a number of sources easily, and there are others out there.  AfD nomination should be based on availability of sources not the current state of sourcing.  Oblivy ( talk ) 03:53, 12 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] See: The article can't be fixed through normal editing , As it has no WP:SIGCOV .  The article isn't created recently.  So,accroding to the guidelines of WP:BEFORE , This article meets Wikipedia deletion policy .  Also, In terms of your point: significant participant in the market, is or may be a word of mouth.  None of the souces are represent it M.parvage ( talk ) 04:57, 12 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I mentioned WP:BEFORE to point out the expectation that editors will actively search for sources before nominating an article.  Simply saying it "can't be fixed" isn't very helpful, especially when there are many sources discussing this company and its activities (including the gonews24 article, which on re-investigation does have several sentences about the company).  Out of curiosity, what was the broken link you mention in the nomination above?  Comment: User: @ Oblivy is not familiar with wiki.  Removed AFD template from the article, here M.parvage ( talk ) 06:20, 12 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes I accidentally removed the template, and that error was reverted shortly afterwards.  This is the second time it's happened recently, and I'm trying to figure out why.  I don't think this detracts from my contributions to this discussion.  Oblivy ( talk ) 06:28, 12 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I am sure that the user@ Oblivy do not know how to contribute in Wiki, as he did here in this page 1 & 2 .  Except replying.  M.parvage ( talk ) 06:41, 12 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Fails WP:NCORP .  References are routine business news providing zero coverage that satisfies WP:SIRS .  scope_creep Talk 11:25, 12 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Article creator.  I want to keep my involvement in this minimal if possible as I don't want to seem biased.  Please see below a list of sources which I believe shows significant coverage on the subject in question: Islam, Rafiqul (2019-12-17).  "Local firm making farm machinery" .  The Daily Star .  ফয়সাল, ফজলে এলাহী মোহাম্মদ (2019-12-02).  সিলেট অঞ্চলে প্রবাসী বিনিয়োগ: একটি সামগ্রিক পর্যালোচনা [Diaspora Investment in Sylhet Region: A Holistic Review].  GoNews24 (in Bengali) .  Retrieved 2019-12-14 .  Parvez, Sohel (2019-01-23).  কৃষি যন্ত্রপাতি উত্পাদনে সরকারি পৃষ্ঠপোষকতা প্রয়োজন [Manufacturing of agricultural machinery requires government patronage].  Kaler Kantho (in Bengali).  In regards to using the company website as a source, to my understanding of WP:GNG , this does not preclude it from being notable, but rather prevents that particular source from being an indicator of notability.  Also, which link is broken?  They all seem fine as far as I can see.  Alivardi (talk) 14:48, 12 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This is a company therefore we apply NCORP criteria (in conjunction with GNG).  There are really two types of sources - those to support fact within the article and those which meet the criteria for establishing notability.  So, yes, the company website can be used (to a point) for the first but is not independent so is not used for the second.  As per WP:SIRS , for the second we require references provide in-depth "Independent Content" about the company.  The Daily Star reference does not contain in-depth "Independent Content" as it simply regurgitates statements from the company without providing any independent analysis.  The information (about the company) is sourced from the company and their execs.  The gonews24 article is a mere mention-in-passing, a couple of sentences about low prices.  This is not sufficient in-depth information to satisfy CORPDEPTH The kalerkantho article relies entirely on an interview provided by Alimul Ehsan Chowdhury, MD of Alim Industries Limited (says it in the byline).  This fails ORGIND as it is not "Independent Content".  Also, as article content creator, you are welcome to participate here and of course you would prefer to keep the article, that isn't being biased.  Perhaps though you can locate references that meet NCORP?  HighKing ++ 15:59, 14 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ HighKing I can't understand how a bylined article is not independent simply because the information is sourced from the article subject.  That's how a lot of journalism is done - journalists go ask people for relevant information.  For sure a relatively passive interview, or reprinting/paraphrasing a press release, might lack independence but I think you're setting too high a bar.  Oblivy ( talk ) 00:48, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] A call to emotion is a poor choice on words on  your part.  The NCORP standard was specifically updated from previous policy in 2017 to address this very siuation, amongst other.  Its fails WP:SIRS .  Interviews are not independent.  The article is non-notable.  scope_creep Talk 08:24, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Oblivy , WP:ORGIND is very clear with regards to a requirement for references to contain "Independent Content"?  It's not a high bar at all if you're interested in Wikipedia articles not being influenced by PR and hype.  Information provided by the company or anybody linked to the company is inarguably not independent.  That doesn't mean that articles that use quotes or company information automatically don't fit the criteria.  It just means that if the vast majority of information in the article is simply regurgitating company-provided info then we don't see that as meeting the criteria for notability.  For example, if the journalist were to use company-provided information in order to further develop independent content such as original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, or fact checking or even provide this independent content from another source, then - so long as the content can be *clearly* attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject company - that would meet the criteria for Independent Content.  Hope that explanation helps.  HighKing ++ 11:28, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm afraid I can't agree with you there, @ HighKing .   The article is bylined, and it cites others such as the agriculture minister and "industry insiders"  (assuming good faith journalism, that's not just the company which is identified).  As to @ Scope creep 's comment, I see no appeal to emotion in what I wrote, which focuses on the reality that journalists source information from people with knowledge.  Oblivy  ( talk )  06:56, 18 June 2023  (UTC)  [ reply ] Bylines are nothing to do with it and your ignoring established consensus with the WP:NCORP standard.  And whether it cites other people is neither here nor there.  Its not independent and that is an expert on WP:NCORP telling you that.  This is about the second or third time in as many weeks that you have decided in an Afd to ignore established consensus.  scope_creep Talk 08:21, 18 June 2023  (UTC)  [ reply ] If you want to teach me how much sourcing is required to make a newspaper article independent please use my talk page.  I don't think your comment is helpful to this discussion.  Oblivy  ( talk )  12:18, 18 June 2023  (UTC)  [ reply ] This is where the discussion is taking place and its always here.  If you want to take a position, that is fine, it is perfectly reasonable but you must provide evidence to support it.  Not make a statement of the type that has been comprehensively discharged as being an unreliable way of providing notability for company's, for more than a decade ago.  scope_creep Talk 16:14, 18 June 2023  (UTC)  [ reply ] WP:ORGIND deals with two types of non-independent journalism:  1)  an author who is not independent of the subject, and  2)  so-called "churnalism" where a journalist just regurgitates information from the subject.  In the article in question, the journalist sought information from other sources and wrote an article.  There follow eight bullet point examples none of which clearly applies to this article  (and you haven't said which one does apply).  Oblivy  ( talk )  05:28, 19 June 2023  (UTC)  [ reply ] Hi Oblivy , WP:SIRS says that content must meet all the criteria - so it must contain in-depth  (CORPDEPTH)  "Independent Content" *about the company*.  This article arguably does not contain any in-depth content - instead it provides a short overview of the company.  When we look at specific or in-depth information, it has all been provided by the company and/or the execs.  This information is clearly attributed.  When I look at the information attributed to industry insiders or the agriculture minister, it is neither in-depth (a single sentence is not in-depth) nor about the company (market stats are not about the company).  So to be clear, once you remove the information that has been provided by the company and/or the execs, we're left with content that fails NCORP criteria for establishing notability.  If you think otherwise, please point to a specific paragraph which you believe meets the criteria.  HighKing ++ 13:23, 19 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] So it's not WP:ORGIND at all.  It's about having to parse this (clearly independently-written, multiple-sourced) article to prove the writer sourced in-depth information elsewhere?  That's not WP:ORGIND , not on any plain reading.  I appreciate that you explained yourself, which is is more than @ Scope creep did.  So thank you, @ HighKing your earlier comments now make more sense, but I give up.  Oblivy ( talk ) 13:58, 19 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I suppose it depends on which way is best to get across the reasons why the reference fails NCORP.  You can either say that the article contains in-depth information, but that because the information is provided by the company and their execs it is not independent and fails ORGIND (which is the way I tend to explain it) or you can say that an examination of the independent content does not contain in-depth information about the company and fails CORPDEPTH.  Six of one, half dozen of the other.  HighKing ++ 12:47, 20 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 11:39, 18 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Per nominator.  DarkHorseMayhem ( talk ) 13:36, 18 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : does not meet WP:NCORP FuzzyMagma ( talk ) 19:44, 18 June 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: no consensus