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 firm might conceivably be notable but none of the sources are usable to show it. The articles in the Sunday Times are all the sort of promotional interviews where the head of the company says just what they please; by WP:NCORP, these do not count toward notability DGG ( talk ) 03:44, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep, there are sufficient independent/reliable secondary sources to clearly establish that it satisfies WP:NCOMPANY and WP:GNG. Maliban is the second largest biscuit manufacturer in Sri Lanka and has won a number of national and international awards (see [1] and [2]). I believe that the nominator hasn't really looked hard enough before putting this article forward at AfD. Dan arndt (talk) 04:50, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Piotrus, I'm not certain if you are serious or not. This is a major company, over 70yrs old, exports its products internationally, has a net worth of hundreds of millions, employs over 1,800 people, has won a number of national and international awards and has significant coverage in all the major newspapers in Sri Lanka and yet you are trying belittle any who has a dissenting view. I think you just need to do a simple check / search and you'll find that there is plenty of significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Dan arndt (talk) 08:59, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Dan arndt, That "significant coverage", as I noted below, is composed of press release and their rewrites. I remain not impressed, neither by the company nor by the keep votes. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:33, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep as mentioned by Dan, this the second largest confectionery company in Sri Lanka. One of the largest non-listed companies in the country. There are plenty of WP:RS.--Chanaka L (talk) 06:31, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Biscuits and milk powder business is carried out by the parent company. In this case, it is clear that more notable company is Maliban Biscuits Manufactories not EAM Maliban Textitles.--Chanaka L (talk) 09:08, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Requiring a higher standard than GNG would only serve to reinforce systemic bias in this encyclopedia. Ibadibam (talk) 02:51, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. [3] is in-depth, but really, it reads like a press-release or company's own history write up (and is businesstoday.lk a reliable source?). Ditto for [4], the publisher seems possibly notable (The Sunday Times (Sri Lanka)), but that's not the same as reliable, and the quality of the tiny paragraph speaks for itself. Both articles are highly promotional: "Maliban, Sri Lanka's premier biscuit manufacturing company, celebrates 50 years of quality, taste and successful commercial operations this year, thus marking another milestone in the company's rich legacy." is the opening of the first, or the ending of the second "this philosophy of using the best quality raw materials and ingredients in the manufacture of Maliban products has been practised unchanged". Actually, the second source is clearly attributed to "This is a statement made by the present CEO Mr D Lakshman Weerasuriya." so it is pretty much a press release (the first source is unattributed, and I'd be surprised if it wasn't written by the company's PR dept, too - the last paragraph ends with attribution of a quote to "U Keerthie Adasuriya, CEO of Maliban"; at the very list it is a very poor excuse for journalism). WP:SYSTEMICBIAS is an issue, but it doesn't absolve content from requiring RS and so on. Standards are the same for all companies. The company got the "National Quality Award" but is the award notable? Sadly, I am leaning delete here, as I am not convinced WP:NORG is met. The closer should consider the strength of arguments - a lot of them are sadly WP:ITSIMPORTANT, WP:ITSNOTABLE, WP:LOCALFAME (that one specifically discusses systemic bias fallacy in notability arguments) and so on. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:28, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 23:50, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment have added further WP:RS to the article. Noting that national newspapers such as The Sunday Times, Sunday Observer and Daily News are all considered to be highly reputable newspapers - it would appear that some editors have a WP:SYSTEMICBIAS in not accepting foreign published newspapers as being notable. The awards that the company has won are both national and international - which is clearly not WP:LOCALFAME. As previously stated the article satisifies WP:NCOMPANY, in that it demonstrates significant coverage in multiple independent secondary sources.Dan arndt (talk) 06:48, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's sufficient to read sources cited to see why those newspapers have very low standards and are of borderline reliability, and likewise, poor for establishing notability. Their 'articles' are press releases or their rewrites. This is not a type of source that we can rely on to prove something his notable. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:23, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is fairly clear that you have based your opinion on a few select articles and therefore have then dismissed all articles as being unreliable - that to me is cultural bias. I think you need to read WP:NEWSORG. These newspapers are considered reliable sources as they have independent editorial oversight and are not reprints of press releases. Maybe you should check before being so dismissive in future. Dan arndt (talk) 07:55, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Saying that it is largest is problem. But it still has sources. Check [5], [6], Someone talking about them in NYC in an Entrepreneur article [7]Fishandnotchips (talk) 11:09, 30 May 2021 (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.