Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zydus Wellness

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. RL0919 (talk) 05:59, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Zydus Wellness

[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)

Pure WP:PROMO, Qualifies WP:ADMASK. Again a highly sub-standard article created by M4DU7 without imparting any encyclopedic value of the article. (Similar page has been marked for AfD, by me) Hence, calling for an AfD. Kindly note; all such kind of sub-standard articles are reviewed by a "New Page Patroller"... on what basis? God Knows. - Hatchens (talk) 03:21, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 03:21, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 03:21, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:26, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:26, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:26, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A large WP:LISTED FMCG company. Nothing about the article is promotional in nature. Other editors are more than welcome to improve this "substandard" article. The nominator has marked it as a paid article... On what basis? God knows. M4DU7 (talk) 04:54, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE: This vote is added by the creator of the article. - Hatchens (talk) 12:18, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: May be a listed company but the current content is extremely limited in scope and does not warrant an entire article at this point of time. The content can be moved to a section in the parent company's article. Prolix 💬 13:29, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have expanded the article a bit with more references. Just to add to my earlier vote, this is a ~US$2 billion market cap company which owns household brands like Complan, Sugar Free, Glucon D, EverYuth and Nycil, some of which are market leaders in India. The references prove that it passes NCORP, CORPDEPTH and GNG. M4DU7 (talk) 04:53, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I appreciate the cleanup and additional references. I also don't read the promotional tone referenced above.--Concertmusic (talk) 23:38, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 01:40, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~KEEP: meets the SIRS test The Ace in Spades (talk) 12:48, 15 December 2020 (UTC)~~ — The Ace in Spades (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Waskerton (talk • contribs). [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:43, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 18:07, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Promotion of a trading company, there is no independent commentary on the company, but a lot of non-independent glowing comments. Fails WP:CORP. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:41, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
From Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Publicly traded corporations (my bolding):
There has been considerable discussion over time whether publicly traded corporations, or at least publicly traded corporations listed on major stock exchanges such as the NYSE and other comparable international stock exchanges, are inherently notable. Consensus has been that notability is not automatic in this (or any other) case. However, sufficient independent sources almost always exist for such companies, so that notability can be established using the primary criterion discussed above. Examples of such sources include independent press coverage and analyst reports.
There is a 32-page analyst report about Zydus Wellness published 24 September 2020 by ICICI Securities here^{Internet Archive} and written by the research analysts Manoj Menon, Vismaya Agarwal, and Karan Bhuwania.
According to this link^{Internet Archive}, Zydus Wellness has received analyst coverage in UBS. According to this link^{archive.today}, Zydus Wellness has received analyst coverage in Edelweiss Group, Sharekhan, ICICI Securities, AUM Capital, Axis Direct, Ajcon Global, Nirmal Bang, and Ashika Research.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Zydus Wellness to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 04:56, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Cadila Healthcare. The present article is a mix of prospectus and advertisement (I've added a cleanup tag in case we don't manage to delete it). Although the company is WP:LISTED, I'm concerned there's nothing at all to say about it beyond coverage of financial transactions and glowing reviews or at least lists of its products. It is clearly notable enough to be mentioned somewhere but it really doesn't seem to warrant an article separate from its parent company. This is true even though stock in the company might be traded independently of its parent. Wikipedia is not a stock market analyst desk. FalconK (talk) 06:26, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article passes both WP:CORP and WP:GNG. Yes, it needs editing to remove the promotional tone, but the article that can be fixed through editing, is not a candidate for AfD. - The9Man ^(Talk) 07:04, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Enough coverage to satisfy WP:CORP and WP:GNG. It is also edited to remove promotional tone. Beagel (talk) 16:05, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Cunard who is correct that analyst reports meet the criteria for establishing notability. I also agree that this article needs some cleanup. HighKing⁺⁺ 22:17, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep looks like enough coverage to me. Doesn't seem like a merge per FalconK would be appropriate because evidentally they're not fully owned by their parent company and it has an independent history. ~EdGl talk 22:28, 5 January 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.