Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Housing and Urban Development Corporation

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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn and no !votes other than keep. (non-admin closure) ~ Winged Blades^Godric 11:37, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Housing and Urban Development Corporation

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

Sources available are not comprehensive at all, only one has any discussion of the subject at all, the rest is simply listings of finances. Article has been tagged with notability maintenance tag since 2014, so if no one can come up with better sources in four years... Waggie (talk) 15:44, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:51, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:51, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Request to preserve the article. The organisation is under control of central government of India started in 1970. I think the article has enough notability because the organisation has started functioning long back by providing financial assistance to various organisations in India. I have added 2-3 references last week. Request for some more days to expand the article with good reference. --Jinoy Tom Jacob (talk) 12:12, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I also feel that this is an important entry for wikipedia as HUDCO is a significant entity in Indian housing finance landscape. I am adding some information on the topic. Kindly consider preserving the article. I will be adding further content to the article User: Anom1987 —Preceding undated comment added 15:58, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:42, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment so some actually relevant sources would be: | Financial express - interview, which contains a summary of purpose and technical plans before the interview; Business Line miniratna status, which covers its public sector enterprise status being given; | Hindustan Times - Aadhaar card/gifts massive fines probably most reliable source, covering the fines it picks up; IPO equivalent, significant detail on going public; | Asian Times - Housing/Development loans and funding. The WP:NCORP notability requirements are very severe, so while the organisation would meet WP:GNG I'm unsure whether it has at least two high quality (vs lots of less good) sources as required. Thoughts? Nosebagbear (talk) 13:34, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have cited some Government annual reports and Lok Sabha's documents, which are fairly reliable. I agree to your point that this article needs more content. I will go through your links and include the information in this article. Thanks. Anom1987 (talk) 16:18, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject is regularly covered by multiple reliable sources. A simple google search provides plethora of sources. Since the organisation is completely owned by the government, the sources are independent, reliable and secondary, which makes the subject pass WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. Pratyush (talk) 13:02, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

PratyushSinha101, could you link to some of these reliable sources here, please? Waggie (talk) 01:45, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[1], [2], [3]. Pratyush (talk) 12:26, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:21, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have added up some some of the functions of HUDCO along with references. HUDCO has been recognized by UN organisation, for UN-Habitat Scroll of Honour Award in 1991. So i think its a good reason to keep the article. -Jinoy Tom Jacob (talk) 20:24, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep-And, a miniratna PSU ought to be encyclopedic-notable......Also, enough abundance of NORG-compliant sourcing.~ Winged Blades^Godric 14:28, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm glad this article has received some much needed attention. I think the added sourcing may now be enough to meet WP:GNG. I'm not sure a miniratna-status organization deserves defacto notability, but I do think there's enough comprehensive sourcing that's been found to deserve a keep here. Waggie (talk) 15:36, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Remove entry from AfD Now that we have settled on keeping this article, can we remove the entry from AfD and also withdraw deletion banner on the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anom1987 (talk • contribs) 04:36, 15 June 2018 (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.