Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lalitha Jewellery (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. Daniel (talk) 21:12, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lalitha Jewellery

AfDs for this article:

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Soft deletion back in November. Recreated so sending back to AfD for consensus. Original deletion rationale - Company fails WP:NCORP in that there are insufficient references that meet WP:ORGCRIT. Assessment of the references is below. I was going to send this to AfD a week ago when recommending the Chairman for deletion, but kept this for a possible redirect as WP:ATD. After further assessment of the references, I don’t think that would be an option as I don’t feel the company is notable. CNMall41 (talk) 20:46, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessement:

1. Economic Times, brief mention (one sentence). Fails WP:CORPDEPTH.

2. Hans India, interview with the Chairman of the company and fails WP:NEWSORGINDIA based on the byline. Likely a PR piece.

3. Sakshi, another interview with the Chairman and coincidentally published within 30 days of the interview listed above.

4. Economic Times, company listing similar to those found in Crunchbase or Bloomberg. Fails CORPDEPTH.

5. The Hindu Businessline, (added since previous deletion) churnalism and NEWSORGINDIA. See the byline and tone of the reference.

6 Economic Times, (added since previous deletion) business listing, fails ORGCRIT and CORPDEPTH.

7. DT Next, written by the Chairman of the company. Not independent.

8. New Indian Express, Fails NEWSORGINDIA with a byline of “express news service” which is customary with churnalism for this publication.

9. Deccan Chronicle, a number of issues including failing NEWSORGINDIA with byline of “DC Correspondent” which indicates press release or churnalism. Also is considered a routine announcement of a location opening.

10. India Today, this is the only reference that I find that comes close to WP:ORGCRIT. However, it is a news story about a robbery that happened at the store so effectively routine news coverage as it talks about the robbery and isn’t in-depth about the company.

11. Tamil Samayam, another article about a robbery.

12. Hindustan Times, article about the robbery suspect surrendering to authorities. This reference is about the robbery and not in-depth about the company itself.

13. The Hindu, another that fails NEWSORGINDIA with a byline of “The Hindu Bureau.” The coverage is also about a donation that the company made to a temple so not in-depth about the company itself.--CNMall41 (talk) 20:46, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

14. Times of India,(added since previous deletion) routine announcement of industry award. Nothing in-depth.

15. Deccan Chronicle, (added since previous deletion) Another routine announcement of industry award. Only two sentences and likely NEWSORGINDIA.

Updated the above assessment list to include the references currently on the page. Also pinging @Wcquidditch: who was the only person who voted in last discussion. Page creator was notified via script. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:54, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. CNMall41 (talk) 20:47, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tamil Nadu-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:48, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Source analysis above shows there is nothing beyond routine/trivial mentions of this company; I can't find anything extra. Delete for lack of sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 21:09, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 21:32, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: based on the source analysis given by the nominator. Charlie (talk) 17:44, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I've gone through the sources and find the analysis presented brilliant. Suitskvarts (talk) 09:13, 24 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.