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. The outcome hinges on the quality of the available sources. Normally, closers don't weigh in on this, as it is a matter of editorial judgment. But here, we have several "delete" opinions that discuss the quality of the available of the sources in considerable depth, and only one "keep" opinion at a similar level of detail and engagement. Given this level of detail in the discussion, the remaining "keep" opinions must be accorded less weight because they merely assert that sources exist, without addressing the "delete" side's concerns about their quality. In other words, based on the discussion among editors who have studied the sources in some detail, we have consensus that they are inadequate. Sandstein 09:39, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

PeopleStrong[edit]

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

I still confirm my PROD here which was extensively informed about what the concerns were, yet it was boldly removed with no actual substantial improvements, the sources (like mentioned with my PROD) are all consisting of PR, event listings, company employee information, company achievemebts and investments. None of that substance ties any notability at all, and the gistory itself shows this was clearly touched by the company and likely their PR agents. In fact, not one thing comes close to being both substantially significant and non-PR. For example, also, simply examine the overall nature of those sources, one of them states "fresh acquisitions", I have never seen that mentioned at "news" unless it was a PR piece. SwisterTwister talk 16:57, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:19, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:19, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: per WP:BEFORE. We don't judge the notability of an article subject by the state of a current article but by the available sourcing. First Post and VC Circle are WP:RS that provide WP:SIGCOV of this company. Safehaven86 (talk) 17:36, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One, the comment is not stating where they find my nomination "supposedly unconvincing" if I stated clearly and fluidly where the concerns are, why there are there and why there are unacceptable. These two links offered above are essentially the same thing, PR, and the fact one of them says "PeopleStrong eyes acquisitions" is basically telling us what the company's plans are, not only to simply say them, but to get clients and investors interested; that is not at all close to actual journalism. Saying that the company got a landmark investment, is another bold attempt at wooing clients and investors, something I actually mentioned above, so stating the contrary that it's "significant and convincing" is not showing the considerations of my comments above. SwisterTwister talk 17:51, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom - what refs there are demonstrate neither WP:CORP nor WP:CORPDEPTH, and are indeed promotional fluff - David Gerard (talk) 19:12, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Check out WP:NEXIST. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:28, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's a non sequitur - David Gerard (talk) 10:47, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:28, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- no indications of significance. A private company going about its business. The sources provided above do not meet WP:CORPDEPTH, for example, from First Post:

"HR is increasingly becoming the cornerstone of successful businesses," said Deepak Parekh, Chairman, HDFC Ltd, in a press release on the investment sent to the media. "I visited PeopleStrong during one of their product launches and I find PeopleStrong ahead of its times. Its founders are competent to take the company to much higher levels. We are happy to be a part of their journey and wish them success for their future growth."

I looked as well and the coverage I'm seeing is PR-like, about partnerships and investments, etc. Not sufficient to build an encyclopedia entry. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:06, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Has sufficient sourcing to pass WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:CORP. Also WP:GNG. -- GreenC 12:18, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Unavailability of sources other than PR and ROUTINE coverage, makes subject ineligible for inclusion failing WP:CORPDEPTH. A news coverage ending with,
PeopleStrong enables Business Leaders and CEO's in transforming their people agenda. It has implemented some of the largest HR Service Centers in Asia Pacific. They are delivering employee services across regions and time zones for more than 300,000 employees and have hired more than 40,000 employees through a unique technology interface coupled with high end decision making Tools for people data.

doesn't signal green for RS. That's Firstpost. Most of the sources are related to HDFC investment into this entity; and they all are either PR or reprint of the same. Anup [Talk] 04:25, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Dutta, Diksha (2014-03-03). "PeopleStrong eyes acquisitions in contingency staffing, HR analytics space". VCCircle. Archived from the original on 2016-09-25. Retrieved 2016-09-25.
  The article notes:
  
  PeopleStrong is an HR outsourcing company specialising in HR shared services, payroll management, recruitment and technology solutions.
  ...
  Last year, the company made a strategic investment by infusing capital in Gurgaon-based Integrated Learning Solution Pvt Ltd, which runs an online skill assessment venture under Wheebox.com. Bansal did not disclose the exact amount put in the company but said that PeopleStrong holds a significant equity in the firm.
  ...
  Bansal did not disclose the revenues that PeopleStrong is clocking but shared that it has an order book of $30 million and has presence across 40 locations in India. The company employs around 500 people.
  ...
  PeopleStrong has received $10 million in funding since 2005, the year of its inception. It has raised funding from angel investors like Pramod Bhasin (former chief of Genpact), Santrupt Mishra (of Aditya Birla Group) and Raja Varadarajan (HR veteran who has also worked at PeopleStrong) between 2006 and 2013. The company received institutional funding from HDFC Holdings and Lumis Partners around a year ago.
2. "PeopleStrong to set up 'talent stock exchange' by December". Business Line. Press Trust of India. 2012-08-05. Archived from the original on 2016-09-25. Retrieved 2016-09-25.
  The article notes:
  
  At a time when the gap between demand and supply of skilled workers is increasing, the human resource outsourcing firm, PeopleStrong, plans to set up a “talent stock exchange” by December this year.
  ...
  The company already has a bank of 40,000 jobs through its different clients, including Nokia, L&T, SRF, Maruti Suzuki, Aditya Birla Financial Services, Tata Sons, Microsoft, Zapper, and Nokia Siemens Network.
  ...
3. Datta, Nandita (2008-09-06). "In Through The Out Door". Outlook. pp. 71–72. Retrieved 2016-09-25.
  The magazine notes:
  
  PeopleStrong, on the other hand, started off by offering HR help-desk services to large firms and then forayed into attrition management.
  ...
  PeopleStrong recently worked with an organisation where an external interviewer had earlier identified work-life balance issue in one of its branch offices as a pain-point. "When we studied their attrition, we found the problem was limited to just a few top performers. Overworked and frustrated, they were leaving, prompting their team members to quit as well," Bansal says. PeopleStrong conveyed this assessment to the company, which admitted that there was some problem with the branch head. The company then put in place an action plan that ensured that communication issues were sorted out with the corporate office. "It was our ability to slice the data that gave us the breakthrough which the other external interviewer could not identify," Bansal says. Over the last two-and-a-half years, PeopleStrong has invested heavily in this business; but Bansal refuses to divulge how much.
4. Sengupta, Devina (2014-12-30). "Wipro's India division to handover staff recruitment responsibilities to PeopleStrong". The Economic Times. Archived from the original on 2016-09-25. Retrieved 2016-09-25.
  The article notes:
  
  WiproBSE -0.27 %'s India and Middle-East division is expected to handover its entire staff recruitment responsibilities to HR solution provider PeopleStrong in a deal valued over Rs 100 crore, people with knowledge of the matter said.
  ...
  PeopleStrong in the past has taken up hiring work for Mahindra & Mahindra and HDFC Life, but the proposed deal with Wipro Infotech will be bigger than those. "This is good news and shows a step in right direction that big firms want to outsource their HR work. If PeopleStrong delivers, we can expect more such clients to sign up," said Shiv Agrawal, managing director and chief executive of ABC Consultants. The staffing firm's fouryear-old RPO business is its fastest growing vertical, expanding at 60% a year.
5. Burroughs, Tim (2013-06-14). "Lumis, HDFC invest in India's PeopleStrong". Asian Venture Capital Journal. Mergemarket. Archived from the original on 2016-09-25. Retrieved 2016-09-25.
  The article notes:
  
  Lumis Partners has teamed up with Housing Development Finance Corporation (HDFC) to invest in PeopleStrong, an Indian human resources outsourcing company. The size of the equity commitment was not disclosed.
  Founded in 2006 by Pankaj Bansal and Shelly Singh, with seed funding from Withya Group, PeopleStrong is headquartered in Gurgaon and has branch offices in Delhi, Mumbai, Hyderabad and Bengaluru. It provides ...
6. Datta, Aesha (2012-04-27). "Even appraisals are now outsourced". Business Line. Archived from the original on 2016-09-25. Retrieved 2016-09-25.
  The article notes:
  
  PeopleStrong, which was launched in 2005, has been witnessing a compound annual growth rate of about 110 per cent each year since its inception. The company aims at going public by 2015.
  ...
  Both Aditya Birla Financial Services and Kotal Life outsource their HR needs to PeopleStrong.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow PeopleStrong to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 01:02, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- per SisterTwister's analysis, I remain unconvinced - David Gerard (talk) 09:34, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Analysis of the listed sources - The first source is not only noticeable of not actually having efforts of journalis, but it goes to begin with "PeopleStrong is an HR outsourcing company specialising in HR shared services, payroll management, recruitment and technology solutions....The company made investments with [named companies and information]....did not disclose the revenues that PeopleStrong is clocking but shared that it has an order book of $30 million and has presence across 40 locations in India. The company employs around 500 people....[Company] has made investments with [named people and stated amounts involved].". The next source says "t a time when the gap between demand and supply of skilled workers is increasing, the human resource outsourcing firm, PeopleStrong, plans to set up a “talent stock exchange” by December this year....The company has a bank of 40,000 jobs through its different clients, including Nokia, L&T, SRF, Maruti Suzuki, Aditya Birla Financial Services, Tata Sons, Microsoft, Zapper, and Nokia Siemens Network". That is not anywhere close to actual journalism because it's all information of the company and by the company; no journalist would have added that if they genuinely were an investigative journalist, and not a look-to-the-side while the company supplies its own PR information.". Next we have "PeopleStrong, on the other hand, started off by offering HR help-desk services to large firms and then forayed into attrition management....The company worked with....". None of that is a journalist's own words, it's the company who is willing to advertise their own company. An outrageous one is the next one: "WiproBSE -0.27 %'s India and Middle-East division is expected to handover its entire staff recruitment responsibilities to HR solution provider PeopleStrong in a deal valued over Rs 100 crore, people with knowledge of the matter said" which is clearly the company businesspeople themselves, because no one else would have been involved with the company's activities....than the company itself and the company alone. The next one is: "Lumis Partners has teamed up with Housing Development Finance Corporation (HDFC) to invest in PeopleStrong, an Indian human resources outsourcing company. The size of the equity commitment was not disclosed....The company was founded in...." That's another that contains PR-supplied company information and that alone; no actual journalist efforts. PeopleStrong, which was launched in 2005, has been witnessing a compound annual growth rate of about 110 per cent each year since its inception. The company aims at going public by 2015....Both companies outsource their HR needs to PeopleStrong; none of that, yet again, is actual journalism efforts because it's simply company-supplied information complete with the blatant last sentence of "Companies supply their HR needs to PeopleStrong". The state of the current media has been bombarded by PR and this is why churnalism exists, to cut media budgets and then let the companies advertise themselves at no costs. Accepting this as "coverage" is essentially accepting company PR therefore we are accepting advertising. Note compare this and this, not only is there the blatant similarities of still PR and PR alone by stating company information, blatantly including clients and company information, but there's still no actual transparency or alleviation of the listed sources by actually making the article better of PR concerns (every single PR article still exists, what simply happened is that the sections were cut). SwisterTwister talk 02:51, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- the above sources are not convincing, as they are mostly PR-like and convey information likely emanating from the company, and would not be suitable RS to establish notability. Content includes:

PeopleStrong in the past has taken up hiring work for Mahindra & Mahindra and HDFC Life, but the proposed deal with Wipro Infotech will be bigger than those. " If PeopleStrong delivers, we can expect more such clients to sign up," said Shiv Agrawal, managing director and chief executive of ABC Consultants.
.... has been witnessing a compound annual growth rate of about 110 per cent each year since its inception. The company aims at going public by 2015.

So this is mostly puffery (investments, plans, and partnership announcements) not meeting WP:CORPDEPTH. I believe this is a case of WP:TOOSOON. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:22, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sources are clearly problematic. WP:CORPDEPTH requires reliable sources independent of the subject which is not satisfied here. Reprinted press releases and sources which publish them are WP:SPIP and cannot be used for notability.

VC Circle Routine news/redressed PR. Note that the source tend to publish press releases.
Hindu Businessline 1 This is the Indian version of PR Newswire. The article seems to be a reprinted news and half of it is quotes by the CEO. Sorry, but that doesn't make it an independent source. CORPDEPTH tends to consider these are routine.
Outlook quotations from an organization's personnel as story sources This is not secondary coverage and is considered routine per CORPDEPTH
Economic Times Routine news of merger Doesn't help to satisfy CORPDEPTH
Asian Venture Capital Journal Patent WP:SPIP, also fails WP:AUD It's very clear that they publish any "news" in the investment/merger area. This kind of sources are never useful because they are in effect a directory. Using these sources for notability goes specifically against WP:NOTDIR.
Hindu Businessline 2 3 sentence coverage of which 2 sentences are quotes by the CEO. Also, 2 articles from the same sources are not considered distinct for notability This is patent ROUTINE coverage.

Every single sources I found is either trivial our routine coverage. There is not one good source which shows that this company is notable. The point about Churnalism by SwisterTwister is spot on. We need to examine the sources properly rather than take them at face value. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:40, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Depth of coverage, which says:
Deep coverage provides an organization with a level of attention that extends well beyond routine announcements and makes it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about an organization.
I do not consider the VC Circle article (source 1) to be "Routine news/redressed PR". I consider it to provide "deep coverage" of the subject by discussing its history, products, and plans.
A little less than half of source 2 (Business Line) contains quotes from the CEO. But the non-quoted portions provide significant coverage of the subject. The article is from the news agency Press Trust of India, which is the Indian equivalent of Agence France-Presse in France, the Press Association in the United Kingdom, and the Associated Press in the United States. I reviewed the non-quoted portions and did not find them in any press releases.
Cunard (talk) 06:43, 28 September 2016 (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.