Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/E-Zest Solutions (2nd nomination)

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. Ignoring the obvious sockery, consensus to delete is unanimous -- RoySmith (talk) 00:50, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

E-Zest Solutions

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

Speedy delete queried thus in my user talk page:- Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:31, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Keep it Have investigated the references. I think the references provided are notable. WP:CORP Shanky3286 14:15, 30 October 2014 (UTC)— Shanky3286 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:29, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:29, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:41, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:52, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The majority of the references are from various membership listings, in which E-Zest is one of many and gets a few sentences. The one Reuters article is about an investment in another company, not about E-Zest as a company. Some of the references are repeats of E-Zest promotional copy (e.g. #14). Essentially no 3rd-party references that would attest to notability. LaMona (talk) 00:37, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it I have checked out the references. The 3rd party references provided are notable.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Panks hbk (talk • contribs) — Panks hbk (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Please sign your posts (the instructions are below the editing box). I see two references that are probably reliable: #3 and #20. However, reliable does not mean notable, and I see nothing that makes this company stand out above others. Each of these sources covers dozens of companies in each issue, which speaks more against notability than for. LaMona (talk) 18:58, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin: the 2 Keep !votes are from possible SPAs. Natg 19 (talk) 01:57, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Doesn't provide enough third-party references to prove that it is notable. Lakun.patra (talk) 07:05, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it The references provided are probably authentic. References #3 #6 #16 #17 #19 and #20 come from notable third party sources. External links like Moneycontrol and Economic Times are noteworthy sources. WP:CORP NEsha21 10:23, 20 November 2014 (UTC)— SNEsha21 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete. Examining the references indicated just above as being substantial: #3 is essentially a press release in laudatory terms, even if written by the editorial staff; #6 is a press release on n acquisition; #16 is a reprint of #15, which is one a a string of company profiles in an issue of an industry magazine, also written like a press release in CIO India; #17 I can not access but seems to be an announcement of being a finalist, rather than winning an award does not add much. #20 is another press release in the same industry magazine as #15-16, and #19 is not Reuters, but a press release by osaic Media Ventures Private Limited a published in Reuters India with an express disclaimer. On the basis of their stories, I do not consider the two trade magazines used RSs for notability -- they seem indiscriminate and repeat platitudes about the lie of business and praise of the company. DGG ( talk ) 22:32, 20 November 2014 (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.