Talk:List of companies of India

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.

Start

This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale. (add comments)

[edit] Mahindra British Telecom

Can we include Mahindra British Telecom in this list as the majority stakeholder is a foreign firm? (comment by User:Koolmale 007

Sure. The composition of the shareholders should not matter much. Pamri • Talk 06:41, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of Indian companies headquartered in Mumbai

This needs work....any help is welcome

Pizzadeliveryboy 01:50, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Citing Sources and Verifiablity

Please remember when including information in an article that it must be based on Verifiable sources. I just spent a great deal of time removing items from your list that do not have wiki articles or any outside references. Keep in mind, many of the companies which I did not remove from the list may not be eligible for inclusion in wikipedia under wp:corp. If anyone needs any help with learning how to include sources you may post a question on my talk page. Alan.ca 07:33, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

It appears that at least one user is adding unsourced claims to the article. For now I'll just monitor and remove. Jtowler (talk) 06:32, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Adding redlinks to the list

I've just cleaned this list again - removing all red links. I'm sure some of the links I removed are links to potential articles on notable companies. However, many are likely attempts at self promotion or even practical jokes. I'm adding this page to my watchlist and will remove any new redlinks that appear. If Wikiproject: India or an enthusiastic editor would like to work on this list and add redlinks to articles waiting to be developed - just drop a note here on the talk page or on my talk page and I'll leave any new redlinks alone. Cheers, Paxse 14:53, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Point?

What is the point of this list? Kappa 05:18, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand your question. Here is WP:LISTS to help you elaborate. Cheers. --LeyteWolfer 11:26, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
- What does it do that Category:Companies of India does not? Kappa 23:00, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  - I'll leave this for someone else to answer, because I've never used the categories version of the lists. My focus is on maintaining notability & easy verifiability of the lists I have used, as well as preventing them from becoming URL magnets. --LeyteWolfer 03:22, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Hey Kappa, good question and one we've been discussing in detail over here Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Greek_companies - check that out for most of the major arguments. Apart from using the list for navigation it can also be a place for more information than just the company name (with annotations etc) or a list of articles to be developed. See WP:LIST for more info. Here, LeyteWolfer and I have been mostly removing link spam and trying to keep people from adding non-notable companies. Because neither of us are experts on Indian companies (I'm not anyway) we have also been removing red links - though perhaps we should rethink that strategy. Essentially I started out cleaning up this list after a previous AfD and watchlisted it until Wikiproject India decided to assess it, maintain it and start expanding. Hope that helps explain a little. Cheers, Paxse 14:38, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Good patrolling

Good patrolling, Kappa, especially in clearing that American company. I've yet to get into each of the links to ensure they actually are Indian companies and I'm sure this list hadn't had it done for some time. Good job. --LeyteWolfer 03:42, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Point revisited

This article has no content that is not already provided in Category:Companies of India. I suggest this article be deleted as it serves only to duplicate information already held elsewhere. Until(1 == 2) 16:19, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Kappa, please use the talk page to address the tags I added instead of just removing them. You say this recently survived AfD? Where is the link? I don't see it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Indian companies. Until(1 == 2) 16:48, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Until(1 == 2), please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Greek companies, which grew (by the submitter) to rapidly encompass every country's list. There was a solid Keep consensus. Discouragingly (sp?), it happened again a few days later with another attempt to backdoor delete it, but admin NawlinWiki quickly referred to the previous consensus and reverted it (though don't see the evidence of it here). India is one of the lead lists to be cleaned up, policy-placed and patrolled, so there is considerable pride in those of us patrolling it. Due to this, I'm reverting to the tag-less version. Thanks for the opportunity for discussion. Cheers. --LeyteWolfer 17:23, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

May I ask why you think this article should not need references? While I can sort of understand how an AfD can mean this may not be unencyclopedic, it surely does not exempt it from the verifiability policy. I think that AfD failed because it nominated dozens of articles. I see no rational for removing that standard cleanup tag. Until(1 == 2) 17:31, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Stupidly, I closed the window when it came up as an edit conflict (thinking it was the article that had the conflict and better wait to see what you changed). My attempted explanation was as follows: the India-crafted policy (at the top of the article and in each alpha-heading) requires a notable company be linked (notability defined as created and surviving company article). The reference for the company being Indian comes from that article. Currently, each company listed has an article that indicates it is India-based, hence the reference is the notable company article. Feel free to double-check the articles; it wouldn't surprise me that some of them deserve Unref tags and that might warrant removal from the List until the reference for that company is provided. If so, we should probably discuss how the policy should be adjusted to reflect that degree of verafiability (sp?). Glad to have you join our rigorous patrol. India used to be rather bad before we went to town on it. Cheers. --LeyteWolfer 17:43, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Howdy Until, for lists of wiki articles, references and notability are problems dealt with in each linked article (otherwise we would have nothing but footnotes). If a company article is created and survives then it is listed. Currently we have one editor working here (Kappa I think) who has been updating the list and adding company articles to the list. Then LeyteWolfer here has been smacking down the spam. Given the sad lemming like state of non-western article AfD's you may be able to have this article deleted in a single article AfD. In fact, this was previously done with the Vietnam, Poland and Cambodia company articles. Hell, if you really feel this is the best way for you to contribute to this encyclopedia, then by all means go ahead. Cheers, Paxse 17:58, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, there is a pretty clear consensus that list articles need citations like anything else if you look at this discussion: WT:V#Verifiability_in_lists. Or you know, if you just take the policy as it is written. It is not my desire to have this article deleted, I would prefer it to be referenced, and to contain more information than a mere list(as an encyclopedic article should), but failing that, yes I do think the encyclopedia would be better without it. Until(1 == 2) 19:27, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

No response? Well since list articles do indeed need to be referenced just like any other article I am returning the {{unreferenced}} tag. Until(1 == 2) 15:07, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Well since you folks would rather edit war I will just leave it. I really find it surprising that such a common cleanup tag that is clearly needed is being resisted so. If you are just going to keep reverting me, I guess this article will remain unreferenced, and free of cleanup tags. Until(1 == 2) 16:16, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Tell you what, you tell us which entries are actually hard to verify, and we will verify them or remove them. Kappa 16:52, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Umm, they all need to be verified eventually. The {{unreferenced}} tag is used when there are no references at all. When there are some references I will use the {{fact}} tag to show which ones are still lacking. Wikilinks are not a reliable source. Until(1 == 2) 16:57, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll admit at first I was inclined to agree with Kappa, but after reading the discussion at WT:V#Verifiability_in_lists, which Until(1 == 2) has already provided, I completely agree that wikilinks aren't sufficient sources. — Dorvaq (talk) 19:20, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

If you look here and here you will find that while wikilinks give the appearance of verifiability, when you actually check the sources it is often the case that much is not referenced. Using wikilinks as references gives a false illusion of completeness. Until(1 == 2) 19:50, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Until, if that discussion above is what you call a "clear consensus" then don't start closing any Xfd's just yet :) There is no consensus, but there is some useful discussion about the issue. Incidentally, people edit wikipedia from all over the world - not just in one time zone - so sometimes it can take (shock horror!) longer than 24 hours to receive a reply. This is not IRC - it's a wiki. Two points before I go to sleep:

As Until already knows, the requirement for sourcing articles came to WP fairly recently. This means that there are literally hundreds of thousands of unsourced articles on En Wikipedia. However, I repeat, there is currently no consensus to delete this information. So don't assume or predict that consensus exists.
Categories came to Wikipedia after Lists. Both are navigation mechanisms for readers (not editors). They are similar, but not identical in function. Most importantly, categories and lists are complementary, not exclusive of each other. Both are useful for readers (and also editors) in different ways.

Now for goodness sake go and add some sources to something from Category:All articles lacking sources. 'night Paxse 19:58, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I am not thinking of deleting anything, I just want it marked as unreferenced till it is referenced. I "go and add sources to things" all the time, if you looked at my contribs you would know that. This is a cleanup attempt, not an attack. As for the time I waited, it was in response to a person who had just reverted me so time zones were not an issue. I am working on referencing it now. Sometimes I think I am having 2 different conversations with people. Until(1 == 2) 20:09, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I would just like to say that this cleanup is directly based on the advice at Wikipedia:List_guideline#Criteria_for_inclusion_in_lists, which describes the inclusion requirements for list based articles.

In summary:

Lists should always include unambiguous statements of membership criteria based on definitions made by reputable sources
Wikipedia:No original research applies equally to a list of like things as it does for the content article on each individual thing listed
The verifiability policy states that "articles should contain only material that has been published by reputable sources. Editors should therefore provide references."
Inclusion on the list should be based on what reliable sources say.
Uncited facts should be marked with a {{fact}} tag, and eventually removed unless cited

An article being created on Wikipedia and not getting deleted is not enough to satisfy our inclusion criteria for lists, and I don't know where such an idea came from. Until(1 == 2) 20:34, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Referencing work log

I have referenced the "A" section and moved the unreferenced tag down, lets see if we can just push it right off the bottom of the page. I have already found one error where a Swiss company was listed, and I also found that 4 of the items(in the A section alone) had no references in the articles they were linked to, they are marked with {{fact}} tags and need to be cited. Until(1 == 2) 20:26, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Finished the B's, I have found another 5 that are not referenced. When I get to the bottom I will start searching the internet/library for the needed verification. If you find a reference for this list, please go to the unreferenced article and use the same reference there, those articles do not pass WP:CORP at this point. Until(1 == 2) 21:10, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Out of the 8 C's, 5 were uncited, and 1 was wrong(it is a Canadian company). Only 2 were referenced. Until(1 == 2) 21:37, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
2 more uncited out of 6 in Ds.

Out of the first 45, there have been 2 incorrect entries, and 16 unreferenced articles. A full third so far was unreferenced. Until(1 == 2) 22:03, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

2 of 4 items in section E had references. Will continue later. Until(1 == 2) 22:11, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
G had 1 of 4 uncited. H had 7 out of 12 unsourced. Until(1 == 2) 15:28, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
All 3 Js has sources, yay! I am at the half way point. You can think of the article as half referenced, or half unreferenced. Until(1 == 2) 15:38, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
2 of 5 unreferenced in K, Both Ls referenced. Until(1 == 2) 17:14, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
3 out of 4 in the Ms have no references. 4 of 10 in the Ns are unreferenced. All the Os are referenced. Until(1 == 2) 00:26, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
2 of 5 of the Ps need references. 4 of 9 of the Rs need citing. Until(1 == 2) 15:18, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
7 out of the 15 S's were not cited in their articles. Until(1 == 2) 18:14, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
6 out of 13 T's were not cited in their articles. Until(1 == 2) 18:29, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Out of the 10 entries is U, V, W, and Z, 6 were uncited. Until(1 == 2) 18:40, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Results of first pass

Out of the 156 entries on this list when I started, 65 of them did not have citations in their articles. 2 of them were not Indian companies(A Swiss company and a Canadian company), and one was speedy deleted as spam. That means 43.5% of this article was either not sourced, or wrong.

When you see a list article that has no references, remember that wikilinks are not a substitute because Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Often Wikipedia articles are unsourced or just plain incorrect, and using Wikipedia itself to "verify" another article is only going to lead to errors, and defeats the whole purpose of getting external verification. See User:Until(1 == 2)/Wikilinks are not references for statistics on this and other articles regarding the accuracy of wikilinks as references.

What I plan to do next is go to Google and try to find sources for the uncited entries. Until(1 == 2) 18:45, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Searching for references

I am attempting to find references for the uncited info now, I will list my progress and draw attention to any I have trouble with.

Found: Ador Powertron Limited - Aranca - Balaji Telefilms - Bharat Aluminium Company - Bharat Electronics Limited - Ballarpur Industries Limited - CMC Limited - Cipla - Covansys India Limited - Coal India Limited - Cadila Healthcare - Dabur India Limited - Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Limited - Eicher Motors - Engineers India Limited - Godrej Group - Hero Cycles Ltd - Hindustan Computers Ltd. - Hindustan Lever Limited - Hindustan Machine Tools - Hindustan Motors - Hindustan Times - Hindustan Construction Company - IBP LTD - i-flex Solutions - Indo Gulf Fertilisers - India Today Group - IndiaTimes Group - Keltron - Kotak Mahindra Bank - Madras Rubber Factory - Murugappa Group - National Aluminium Company - Nectar Lifesciences - Nicholas Piramal - Nirma - Pawan Hans - Patni Computer Systems - Reliance Capital - Reliance Fresh - Robosoft Technologies - RocSearch - Sahara India Pariwar - Sasken Network Engineering Limited - SMGB - Shipping Corporation of India Ltd - STAR India Network - Swaraj Mazda Ltd. - TamilNadu Mercantile Bank Ltd. - Tata Chemicals - Tata Elxsi - Tata Interactive Systems - Tech Mahindra - Torrent (Group) - United Beverages Group - Vijaya Bank - VSNL - Wadia Group - WEBEL

Skipped

~~Archies Limited - The common word "Archie" makes searching difficult, this does not seem to be a large company, but it is hard to tell.~~

Abecedare found a source for this, thanks

~~BPL group("British Physical Laboratories") - I cannot find anything but their home page and a few directory listings, not reliable independent sources. I only looked on the first couple search pages.~~

Abecedare found a source for this, thanks

Removed

M. M. Ispahani, only sources I can find indicate it is based out of Bangladesh.
Mphasis Limited - no article, drive by addition, only homepage as a source
Readworthy Publications Pvt Ltd (India) - Seems to be a non-notable company, I have AfD'd the article. I am removing this entry due to the fact that the author of this article is also the founder of the company.
Syntel, this company was founded in Troy, Michigan in 1980. It operates in India, also operates in many other countries and is based in the US.

Until(1 == 2) 19:41, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Self reference in introduction

Regarding the introduction to the article, and per Wikipedia:Avoid self-references, I do not think it is appropriate to be leaving messages to editors in the actual article. The introduction is a self reference. Perhaps this note could be put in html comments at the top of each section? Until(1 == 2) 20:08, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Since this is already mentioned in html comments below each section, I am going to boldly rewrite the introduction to not be self referential, revert and discuss if you disagree with the change. Until(1 == 2) 22:14, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Empty letters in or out?

Currently there is a section for some letters that have no entries, but not for others. We should get rid of all empty sections or include them all.

My personal take is that the empty ones should be removed, and barring any objection I will do just that in the morning. If I do so before you can object, and do object, just revert and discuss as per WP:BRD. Remember, the discussing after the revert is the most important part. Until(1 == 2) 00:31, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the empty sections. Until(1 == 2) 15:00, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I placed <span id="X" /> tags(Where "X" is the letter that is missing) where the empty sections were, so now the table of contents buttons for those letters will still take you to the correct place. Until(1 == 2) 19:32, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

As discussed elsewhere, I don't always have a connection, so can't be on for (near) real-time discussions; therefore, I want to head off any assumption that my absence is a lack of interest. However, in this case, I'd vote for keeping all, as we can include the abbreviated policy within each section. Spammers have less reason to claim they didn't know the policy, since it would appear in the edit box for the section they are spamming. Note: I'm not so adamant this is absolutely necessary, however. Spam will still get added (and deleted), in spite of the sectional policies. If we delete the extra sections, I don't think it takes anything away from the article. --LeyteWolfer 02:20, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Interesting point, but the html comments could just be placed next to the <span id="X" /> tags as easily as the section tags. I personally think the empty sections are hard on the eyes and break up the flow of the list. Either way is fine. I will put the HTML warnings by the span tags, and if you want to restore the sections, you can do that. Until (1 == 2) 02:40, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

The empty sections were Q, Y, and X. I've turned "P" into "P, Q" and "Z" into "X, Y, Z". I think this is the best way. Kappa 03:40, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I like it. Good idea. Until (1 == 2) 03:47, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bombay Stock Exchange as source ?

Can't we use the BSE listings as a common verifiable source for most of the companies in this list ? See the BSE main menu, or say, this listing for Patni computers. Abecedare 20:36, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I would say that it is enough of a reference to demonstrate it is a company in India. But it does not demonstrate notability. I am currently making sure each entry can be confirm to be from India, after that I am going to do a tighter pass ensuring notability. You are welcome to move items that do no demonstrate their notability to the talk page per the advice in WP:LISTS#Criteria_for_inclusion_in_lists. Until (1 == 2) 14:09, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I was not clear:

Notability of a company is (hopefully) established by the existence of a wikipedia article on the company, which should be and is an inclusion criterion for this list.
I am only proposing that the we can use the BSE listing to verify the existence anf "Indianness" of the company. The only advantage of this is that we can use a common source as a citation for multiple companies.

Some unrelated points:

Placing refs in a collapsible box causes accessibility problems and makes the refs. unprintable (without some hacking). So it should probably be avoided even though there is no current policy against it. See discussion here
India has several non-public "holding groups" such as the Tatas, Birlas, Hindujas, BPL etc. Do we list them in this list, or only list the notable individual companies that they "own" ?

Abecedare 16:56, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Nope, notability is not established by the existence of a Wikipedia article, from WP:LISTS#Criteria_for_inclusion_in_lists: "Inclusion on the list should be based on what reliable sources say", Wikipedia articles are not a reliable source. Most of the articles listed here have no sources at all, much less demonstrate notability. The idea that having an article on Wikipedia established notability is contrary to how we determine notability, through independent reliable sources. Though I do agree that having an article should be a requirement for inclusion on this list(just not the only requirement).

Regarding the references, I am fine with them being taken out of the collapse box, I only did so because it was getting long.

As for the holding groups, I am really not sure about that. Until (1 == 2) 17:59, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

From WP:LISTS: "Lists should always include unambiguous statements of membership criteria based on definitions made by reputable sources, especially in difficult or contentious topics." We have such unambiguous criteria, it is shown in the html comments before each section. It says companies need to meet WP:CORP to be included, having an article is not enough. Until (1 == 2) 18:00, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

We seem to be talking past each other on the notability/verifiability issue, so I'll drop the issue, especially since I completely agree that refs are required (for verifiability) :-)

By the way, what is the inclusion criterion for this page ? Is any company which is mentioned in the media fair game or does it require some higher standard of notability ? In particular, can we list companies, even if they are still red-links ? Abecedare 18:10, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

While I personally don't think we should have red links, it is well within our inclusion criteria to have red link on a list article as long as it has sources to meet our inclusion criteria. Of course, if such sources were found then a stub could easily be made for the article. I am glad we agree about the requirement of references for verifiability. Until (1 == 2) 18:25, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] This article is sourced

This article is now in line with the WP:V policy in that there is now a source showing that each company is indeed a real company from India. Thanks to those who helped me find references.

Next, I will be going through and ensuring that the notability criteria as defined by WP:CORP is met. This seems to be the existing standard for this list based on the html comments before each section and is also in line with policy. Until (1 == 2) 18:36, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Short sourced summary

In the spirit of this list being more than just a repetition of the category, I suggest that a short sourced statement about each company be added. Finding such sourced information will help establish notability and give this article content beyond just being a list. In the course of finding these short summaries I can find sourced content for the articles themselves which are for the most part devoid of sourced information. I suggest that the statements be limited to non-controversial information which is sourced by independent reliable sources. Until (1 == 2) 19:02, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Good idea. I assume you mean something along the lines:

Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd: a voice, data and broadband services provider. ^[1]

... or did you have something more expansive in mind ? Abecedare 19:08, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

That is good. Ideally an assertion of notability would be nice, such as:

Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd is a voice, data and broadband services provider^[1] that launched Web Protect, a product used to block access to unwanted internet content. ^[2]

The goal after all is to establish notability. Imo notability in this is not a pressing concern requiring immediate action, but over time it does need to be addressed. Until (1 == 2) 19:24, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your goal but disagree with the proposed VSNL example. IMO mentioning the "Web product" for VSNL is akin to saying:

Microsoft: a software and technology company, whose new data center is being built with trucks running on fuel from canola. oil.^[3]

which is true and verifiable but places an undue weight on the latest press report and thus provides the reader with (true but) misleading information. Instead I suggest that the short sourced summary be along the lines of what one would expect in the respective articles lead sentence (with sources, of course!). That will require more work but will also be more useful eventually. Abecedare 19:42, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Please see my revision to the VSNL entry on the main page, to see an example of what I am proposing. Abecedare 19:55, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Looks better, thanks. Until (1 == 2) 20:05, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I finished the short-list for "V" using Wright reports, which seems to be a great resource for our purpose. It has employees and sales data too, but I am not sure what currency the sales are denominated in, so am not including them at the moment. Abecedare 20:27, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Change the title of this to List of Notable Indian Companies

Maybe you need to change the title as above. Why waste peoples time in adding companies un-necessarily. Gp1973 (talk) 02:53, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Refs