This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles
This article was copy edited by Jonathanischoice, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on 27 January 2024.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CompaniesWikipedia:WikiProject CompaniesTemplate:WikiProject Companiescompany articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pharmacology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pharmacology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PharmacologyWikipedia:WikiProject PharmacologyTemplate:WikiProject Pharmacologypharmacology articles
Dear Timtrent and HighKing, need a second opinion on this entity's notability. I've reverted it back to draft for the time being. -Hatchens (talk) 11:24, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Hatchens For me this depends upon sourcing. I see Frost and Sullivan has made a detailed report as has IIDE, an organ I have not heard of hitherto, but whose work carries the stamp of authority. The CNBC reference is also decent. That gives us three solid references, which is, in my view, sufficient for notability
I am unconvinced that the article, as written, reflects what is in the references. It does not feel to me to portray a balanced view of the organisation. While undue weight should not be given to any downside it should also not be given to any upside, and the references show more downsides than are reflected in the article.
That does not mean it was incorrect to draftily the article, but it would not have been my first resort. There is work to be done within it.
@Nomadicghumakkad, you accepted this AFC submission earlier today and I would like to ask for your thoughts, please. I see this as a draft that would not have been deleted during any immediate deletion process, but as a draft that also required improvement as an article. FiddleTimtrentFaddleTalk to me 11:40, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to limit my response to whether the sourcing meets WP:NCORP. In my opinion, there are multiple sources that meet NCORP including analyst reports. This piece from the-ken.com] (paywall) meets NCORP criteria for establishing notability as it contains in-depth independent commentary on the company. This analysis by Frost & Sullivan contains analysis of India's "e-Pharmacy" market and includes a profile of the topic company. This also meets NCORP criteria. (As an aside I disagree that the "swot analysis" produced by iide.co carries a "stamp of authority" - IIDE is a "school" for "online marketing" and in my opinion, the SWOT analysis (produced by the "head" of "Learning and Development" who is a "content marketing expert") is an example of how a pseudo analysis can be used for marketing. The blog post is clearly a marketing piece, fails WP:RS and WP:ORGIND.) HighKing++ 20:50, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to both of you for bringing good enough clarity on this entity. Just for one and final verification, I would like to seek the views of Chiro725 and Bonadea - both have draftified this entity's page in last 6 months (respectively). My question for them, is there any substantial addition to the current draft when compared with previous ones? if yes, then cam it be passed into main article namespace? -Hatchens (talk) 01:49, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Subject is notable as identified above. FiddleTimtrent, I have refrained to add anything about funding, revenue, growth etc in this since they feel very much of a routine thing for any company of this size. What else downsides do you feel should be added? Please feel free to add them as you see fit. Do want to highlight that I was the first one to flag it for notability and POV here [1]. Hence, I know how it differs from what was originally written in terms of citations provided and neutral point of view. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 00:32, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Nomadicghumakkad The community as a whole can decide what to add in. I see this as a necessary return to main space because it qualifies. Sufficient time has elapsed since others were pinged for this to go back to be an article, I think. FiddleTimtrentFaddleTalk to me 09:08, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Tim. You are an integral part of the community and your inputs alone were just as much welcomed Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 14:43, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have weighed the consensus and returned this to be an article[edit]
I have not made a formal close to the informal discussion above, primarily because I am a participant. Instead I have moved this back to be an article. At this stage in its life this was probably a better discussion than a deletion process. FiddleTimtrentFaddleTalk to me 09:14, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
