Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Atul (company)

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. (non-admin closure) Agent 007 (talk) 09:18, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Atul (company)

[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)

Fails WP:CORP and WP:GNG, no significant independent coverage in reliable sources & most important article is promotional in tone. Chronos.Zx (talk) 02:07, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Business, China, United Arab Emirates, India, Gujarat, Brazil, and United States of America. Chronos.Zx (talk) 02:07, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep -Atul is a noted company of India founded in 1947 , listed both on National Stock Exchange and Bombay Stock Exchange [1] with Stock Price of Rs 6773/-, Please do WP:BEFORE before nominating and read WP:DEL before nominating articles for deletion Jethwarp (talk) 03:23, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that listed companies on major stock exchanges are not immediately presumed notable and still require sources to demonstrate notability (see WP:LISTED), but I would be very surprised if this one is not notable. The problem is that when I try to search for sources, the results are clogged by a huge amount of routine discussion of this company's stock price. Might count as an indicator of notability, though. Toadspike [Talk] 18:58, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The company passes both WP:CORP and WP:GNG , so the nominator rationale for deletion does not hold here. He says no significant independent coverage in reliable sources which is not true. 03:56, 13 May 2025 (UTC) Jethwarp (talk) 03:56, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
independent sources is still required per WP:CORP and WP:GNG, I conducted a WP:BEFORE search and found primarily routine financial reports like stock price updates, which do not meet WP:CORPDEPTH for significant coverage. Chronos.Zx (talk) 11:17, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just would like to add that WP:CORPDEPTH argument does not hold here, there are substantial coverage in books and news media about Atul Limited. It is not a small a medium sized company , it is a large multi specialty chemicals manufacturing conglomerate which has spread its wings across the globe in these 8 decades. Also there is nothing promotional in the article, everything mentioned is a fact. The Lalbhai group are one of the most low-profile people, who hold highest esteem for their integrity, never involved in any controversy and known for their phinlantrohic activities also never seeking media attention and limelight. I have added many citations and expanded the article in last few days. Although I had removed promotional tag, it was added back without mentioning which part of article is promotion. It's current market cap is 19,995 crores, which is 199950 Millions. Jethwarp (talk) 03:36, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – robertsky (talk) 04:55, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article contains substantial coverage, as I can observe. This is unequivocally a Keep. AndySailz (talk) 12:23, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Based on mentioned references in the article which is generally a reliable and independent references. Fade258 (talk) 08:39, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The references cited are generally reliable and independent. Notability is not questionable. J. P. Fridrich (talk) 11:54, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: article has good reference & coverage. Ogambo obmagom (talk) 13:17, 24 May 2025 (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.