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 keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:20, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ebix[edit]

[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)

Highly promotional article that's mostly about Robin Raina and not about the company. Sources cited are highly suspect, e.g. "Robin Raina Net Worth (2022)". "Raina is known to lead the firm efficiently during the 2008 global financial crash". And so forth. WP:LISTED does not compel us to keep this just because it's publicly traded, and the sources cited are all routine business coverage or not WP:RS at all, leaving little to be said about Ebix. FalconK (talk) 23:09, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. FalconK (talk) 23:09, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. FalconK (talk) 23:09, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; not promotional at all: This Hindustan Times article clearly says that it's "a leader in insurance and payment processing software and exchanges". And according to this Business Today article, it is the "only company in Atlanta that has a road named after it: 1 Ebix Way". Moreover, this company has enough media coverage that your bid to challenge its notability makes your stance completely baseless. If you think this article is written like an advertisement you can certainly use different a tag instead of AfD. Now let others decide. Derivator2017 (talk) 13:18, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I was looking into this, and note that the Hindustan Times piece linked above is a by-line-less reprint of an Asian News International piece, with the latter source's reliability being highly contested last time it was discussed; I would not consider it to be an indicator of notability in this context. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 16:01, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but improve. This is a company on the NASDAQ with a current market cap of over $900 million USD. Suggest tagging with appropriate improvement tags. Ebix Smartclass has also been marked for deletion so perhaps merging it to this page would be a start.Gusfriend (talk) 02:05, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As above - needs work, but no need for WP:TNT. FalconK if you could tag the areas you have a problem with, I'm happy to work on them. Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:43, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed some of the irrelevant stuff but my main problem with it is that there's so little to say about the company other than that it's a business, has a bunch of money, and exists. I'm having some trouble with WP:CORPDEPTH on this one. FalconK (talk) 08:51, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as per nom. Fails WP:ORGIND. Rest everything is WP:PROMO. Possible WP:COI. - Hatchens (talk) 15:21, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: sources fail WP:NCORP. ––FormalDude talk 20:17, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:04, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because the article is not promotional at all. It doesn't need to be deleted. It just needs some improvement. ThePremiumBoy (talk) 09:09, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But where is the evidence for notability? FalconK (talk) 07:59, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep None of the refs in the article or those found above are independent (especially the long ones - Business Today is interview masked as a report, Smart Business is clearly promotional) , except the Bloomberg article on accounting probe. But that probe had led to some solid coverage of the company (bloomberg, wsj) and there were a number of detailed short seller reports at that time (1, 2). As it is WP:LISTED, I expect more analyst reports can be found (I'm unable to find more myself, due to unfamiliarity with US stocks). hemantha (brief) 05:13, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note - Additional reliable sources: Reuters (regarding merger litigation), TechCrunch (regarding merger - includes in-depth coverage of Ebix), The Atlanta Journal-Constitution (regarding stock price fall, and questionable stock sales), Mint (regarding another merger), Mint (regarding an IPO), Mint (regarding an acquisition), Mint (regarding two acquisitions), Fortune India (regarding another acquisition), Mint (in-depth look at the company’s acquisition strategy), USA Today (AP) (regarding Goldman Sachs calling off its purchase of Ebix). — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 07:26, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To examine the newly added sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:55, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources provided by Hemantha and Coffee. 12:15, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are analyst reports available for this company and commentary which I believe meet NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:22, 9 February 2022 (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.