Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dabur

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - kept - SimonP 01:45, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Dabur

Looks like advertising spam. None of the information is particularly encyclopedic. --Laura Scudder | Talk 00:25, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agree. -- Fingers-of-Pyrex 02:18, 2005 May 17 (UTC)
Delete, not notable, advert. Megan1967 04:45, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. The fourth largest FMCG company in India. I have wikified a bit, and article no longer looks like advertising spam. utcursch | talk 05:03, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
Keep and thank Utcursch for the cleanup. Kappa 06:12, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable company, now a good stub. --the wub (talk) 08:18, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is not a advertising spam . One should go to the Middle East and India to see the market span of the company .
Keep Original article warranted removing, but now revised and worth keeping. Sgkay 10:40, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if it is such a massive, notable company it should be worth more than two sentences. The fact that it isn't proves its non-notable status. --Cynical 13:16, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Just go to www.dabur.com and see wether its a notable company or not .

Last entry by Guptadeepak at 16:25, 17 May 2005

Keep, notable. Eixo 15:10, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable, and at its current state after cleanup, certainly it can be kept. Should be expanded though. --Ragib 15:24, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but improve. There are many articles on here about companies, so why delete this article and keep the others? The content needs to be improved, but I think the topic belongs on Wikipedia. Aecis 22:13, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, companies with a turnover of $300M are notable. Googling on "Dabur India" returns 35k pages, of which the first 20 refer to this company. -- Jitse Niesen 22:36, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep big company. needs to be expanded -- 152.78.254.131 22:39, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Yeah, I've never heard of them, but is that really a surprise? Kelly Martin 00:48, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
Keep, and to be developed suitably by persons who may be aware of such things. As regards the size of the article - several articles were stubs - A P J Abdul Kalam, the present president of India was hardly 40 words, Dhirubhai Ambani who laid foundation for the largest industrial house in India (when he died 2 years before it was worth 12 bn US$) was less than 60 words, and the last week's WP:COTW, Culture of Ancient Rome was less than 100 words. As such, size of Dabur in words should not determine one's vote to keep or delete. As regards "not notable" and "advert" - after a level, a corporate house rises above these levels and sets its own standard, and is not dependent on wikepedia for notability and advertisement: do anyone feels that an article on Bill Gates and Microsoft would be vanity / advertisement and so on. Dabur is a corporate house, which does not require an article on wikepedia to promote itself - it is in existence for about 100 years and the medicines it produces and sells have been in India for several thousand years. Before any vote for deletion, one should please understand wikepedia's guideleins in this respect and not vote for deletion without any familiarity with the topic. We all are here to make wikepedia "sum total of human knowledge" and not to reduce it. I am sorry for the lecture. --Bhadani 03:18, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I actually think people marked it for vfd not for any prejudice, because it sounded just like an advert in its first draft. The edits following that have improved it to its current state, which is good, but in its first few drafts, it really looked like an ad. --Ragib 03:34, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- In view of your comments, I have removed certain portions of my earlier comments. Thanks.--Bhadani 03:41, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -I don't know what do people mean to say by calling the first few articles on Dabur an Ad . Even the present revised article looks like an AD in that case ,just that it is a bit more informative . Think people love to argue on this site . --IncMan 12:49, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Please look, sometimes, my strong reactions to some issues upset the puople around, they upset me equally - today, I was feeling bad for a greater part of the day. I promise to be more careful in my comments and reactions. Now, coming to the present issue, yes, Dabur may be a good topic for an article, but the present contents do require modifications: actually, I am not able to plan on this topic otherwise I would have attempted to do this myself, as earlier, I had done with a few articles under VfD like Awasthi, RURAL MARKETS and Family traditions. In any case, I am sorry for my strong reactions. --Bhadani 17:47, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.