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. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:42, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nagina Group[edit]

Nagina Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No progress from previous AfD, no new sources found. Fails to satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH. Those already present are not WP:RS as many are directory listings. Störm (talk) 18:09, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:16, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:16, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep In my view, the 5 references presently at the above article are reliable business websites – (Forbes business website), Dawn (newspaper), Business Recorder (2 references from the largest business newspaper in Pakistan), The News International (newspaper). I honestly don't understand how any one of them can be called a 'directory listing'? I also went ahead and updated all 5 references. This company is a notable company because one of its Wikipedia categories is …Category:Conglomerate companies of Pakistan. Ngrewal1 (talk) 01:45, 4 September 2019 (UTC) anyway.[reply]

Comment Have you read the guidelines? Nowhere does it say that if references appear in "reliable business websites" then the topic must be notable. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:32, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment By the way, Prosperity Weaving Mills Limited (a part of Nagina Group) is listed on the Pakistan Stock Exchange. So a notable company due to this fact also. I also added 3 more newspaper references today. Ngrewal1 (talk) 20:15, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If there are analyst reports for Prosperity Weaving Mills, then that compeny would surely pass the notability criteria. But notability isn't inherited. Where are the analyst reports and references for this company that meet the criteria for establishing notability (see WP:ORGIND especially). HighKing⁺⁺ 14:33, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Being listed on the stock exchange makes it a sizable enough company in Pakistan. Some more background on the textile subsidiary is mentioned by Business Recorder here. Mar4d (talk) 19:03, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response Mar4d, except *this* company isn't listed on the stock exchange. Also Notability isn't Inherited. Can you clarify again why you are !voting to Keep? HighKing⁺⁺ 14:32, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Things get a bit tough with cases like this, where we are not dealing with some obvious promo/spam attempt for a start up. It's a mid size company with ~50 years of history. But pretty please, we need sources that are not press releases, and that's all there is in the article. Google Books gives me a snippet " Nagina Group, one of the oldest textile groups in the country, consisting of Nagina Cotton Mills Ltd. Ellcot Spinning Mills Ltd and Prosperity Weaving Mills Limited" [1]. And that's all I am seeing in Books/Scholar. We have to face the fact that WP:ITSIMPORTANT is subjective and not a valid. In its half a century of a history, this company doesn't seem to have attracted any serious attention from anyone willing to write about that outside or passing mentions/press releases of 'business as usual'. Therefore, this is WP:YELLOWPAGES type of a fail. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:17, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Excellent analysis by Piotrus above, summarised as "if, after 50 years, there aren't any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability, then it isn't notable". Nonsense arguments which are not based on our guidelines put forward by Keep !voters above. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:32, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment When Pakistan Stock Exchange website shows it's traded on their exchange, there is no doubt it's traded there!!! Other financial, national and international business websites, may not be updated yet.

Again, when Forbes magazine lists this company as among the best-performing-companies with less than US $1 billion in revenue in 2003, we can safely assume this company already went through their evaluation process. Forbes website reference is at the above article.

Then there are ASIANET Pakistan and 7 other independent newspaper and business website references at the article. Ngrewal1 (talk) 22:48, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Response Please read WP:NCORP. All of your sources fails this guideline and most of the arguments put forward against your references are grounded in those guidelines, especially WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND and the definition of "Independent Content". 1) This company is not listed on any stock exchange. A subsidiary appears to be but not this company. Also see WP:LISTED as being listed is not a guarantee of notability. 2) Being included on a list is specifically listed as "trivial coverage" and fails WP:CORPDEPTH 3) Not a single one of those references meet the criteria for establishing notability. Most are based on company announcements and mentions-in-passing. None contain "Independent Content" (as defined by WP:ORGIND). HighKing⁺⁺ 17:14, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Let's be reasonable with each other here, please. I took your own above provided link subsidiary and used it to find out that both subsidiaries – Prosperity Weaving Mills Limited and Nagina Cotton Mills Limited of Nagina Group are shown being traded on Pakistan Stock Exchange on MarketScreener International website. Then just to improve the article further, I have even included your two references at the article. We all know that Nagina Group's subsidiaries are part and parcel of the parent company and I am sure the reputable Forbes magazine considered all those factors before giving its rating 'as among the best-performing-companies with less than $1 billion in revenue in 2003'. Anyway, let's not continue arguing over it and let the closing administrator decide what they want to do with this article based on facts and contents of this article. Ngrewal1 (talk) 01:39, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It sounds like the only point of disagreement at this stage (hopefully my summary is not misrepresentative) is that you say that if the subsidiaries (they are listed, probably because there must be analyst reports although I haven't checked) are notable (generating revenues for the parent) then the parent is also notable. My position is that (as per guidelines) notability isn't inherited and the parent must be notable in its own right. You say notability is established through the Forbes article (implying the Forbes article meets the criteria for establishing notability). I say the Forbes article is "trivial coverage" (specifically, inclusion on a list - fails WP:CORPDEPTH) and furthermore contains zero information on the company (fails CORPDEPTH). Sure - let the closing admin make a decision. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:56, 17 September 2019 (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.