Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/B. Jain
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. Sr13 08:21, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] B. Jain
Per WP:CORP, I cannot find any reliable secondary sources that demonstrate this publisher's notability. Skinwalker 16:08, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - main contributor seems to have a CoI. I can't find a lot of references to their "scientific homeopathic journal" either: 7 citations in Google Scholar for a journal that has been issued for tens of years. Han-Kwang 17:25, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
- Delete No credible assertion of notability. Shalom Hello 17:53, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Look at Skinwalker's edit history. He loves to go around tagging anything about homeopathy for afd. The article itself is a stub about an Indian publishing company. It is pretty comparable in content to other stubs about other publishing companies. Why is Skinwalker not tagging these other articles? B Jain is probably the worlds biggest publisher of homeopathic literature. The company deserves a little stub in Wikipedia, why not? This is pure and simple a bad faith nom, and ideologically motivated AFDs like this only weaken Wikipedia. Abridged talk 03:58, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
-
- I'm not going to respond to this editor's personal attack, other than to say that Wikipedia has far too many pages on completely non-notable pseudoscientific figures and companies. AFDs like this tend to bring out the partisans and "true-believers". Cheers, Skinwalker 12:15, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
- My edit history shows clearly that I am NOT a "true believer", but have been a balanced editor. I explained above why I felt this stub deserves to be in wikipedia. This AFD has brought out a partisan and a true believer, and that, my friend, is you! You would increase your credibilty if you AFDed something that didn't have to do with homeopathy! Abridged talk 20:16, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not going to respond to this editor's personal attack, other than to say that Wikipedia has far too many pages on completely non-notable pseudoscientific figures and companies. AFDs like this tend to bring out the partisans and "true-believers". Cheers, Skinwalker 12:15, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep a modest article about a specialized company--but there should be at least one other source; this should be possible, there must have been references in the homeopathy journals. DGG
- Delete Fails WP:CORP requirement, that "A company, corporation, organization, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of secondary sources." Article can be recreated if & when such sources are found. Abecedare 21:01, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:CORP. --Ragib 21:27, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
- Delete until sources are found and it satisfies WP:CORP. GizzaDiscuss © 22:32, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
- Delete while it is possible for a family owned and managed company to be notable, those are the exception---as a general rule, it is a clear indicator that thsi doesn't meet CORPBalloonman 05:22, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
- 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.
