Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TLG Communications

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. Stifle (talk) 17:52, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

TLG Communications (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Not notable. Award won is typical of the industry. Philafrenzy (talk) 23:04, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Very Weak Keep - Topic meets may just meet WP:GNG. Here are two sources I've added to the article:

*Acharya, Nupur (2011-06-20). "Infosys, Tata Brands Beat Google and Apple - WSJ.com". Online.wsj.com. Retrieved 2012-01-11.

• Acharya, Nupur (2011-06-20). "Infosys, Tata Brands Beat Google and Apple". The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 2012-01-11. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

(Fixed URL to The Wall Street Journal link above). Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:05, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The link still only lists part of the article, however, the actual article has more information about TLG Communications than this incomplete page. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:11, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Update: Here's the complete article for the WSJ link above:

"By NUPUR ACHARYA

MUMBAI -- Infosys Technologies Ltd. and the Tata Group have topped a list of India's leading corporate brands, far ahead of global giants such as Apple Inc., according to a recent report by a London-based company. Indian companies did well in the survey, bagging seven of the top 10 positions, very different from the U.K., where only four local companies made it to the best 10 list in a similar study. The survey, by TLG Communications, identifies what it says are "thought leaders." It defines thought leaders as corporate brands which have the power to change the attitude and behavior of consumers, employees or politicians. One marked absence from the India top 20 is Apple, which topped similar surveys in the U.S. and the U.K. Google India, at third place, is the highest-ranked foreign company, while Apple had to settle for the 40th spot. The TLG index of Thought Leadership said Infosys and Tata are global corporations with significant investments in the U.S. and the U.K. The report added that the index leaders have not only penetrated Western markets, but are also emerging players in high-value sectors, previously a forte of the West. Infosys is India's second-largest software exporter by sales, while the Tata Group has diversified businesses, from making trucks and cars to providing telecommunications services. India's biggest motor manufacturer, Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., is ranked number four, followed by engineering giant Larsen & Toubro Ltd. Placed 10th on the list is automobile major Mahindra Group. The list is the first-ever index of thought leaders conducted in an emerging market by TLG in partnership with market research consultancy GlobeScan.

Respondents to the survey include ministers, directors of blue chip companies and newspaper editors, TLG said."

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:17, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Myslewski, Rik (November 25, 2009)."Apple tops Google as UK 'Thought Leader'." The Register.

This article needs more sourcing, some copy-editing, and more inline citations. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:34, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 20:33, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Sources added do not come close to significant coverage of the firm. Fails WP:GNG Mtking ^(edits) 21:04, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Your link to [1] doesn't work right. Takes you to something else. Anyway, Google news archive search shows results for reliable sources writing entire articles based on their research and explaining who they are and how they do things. Dream Focus 00:43, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 08:12, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See comments above about links. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:13, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This calls itself a Thought Leadership consultancy. "Thought Leadership" is apparently the latest bullshit phrase for "advertising", and its use in the description of a business automatically qualifies the article for speedy deletion. One alleged source seems to have had a paragraph inserted without a headline about this business, and does not look like a reliable source. PR Week "buzz" awards and the like do not establish significant effects on history, technology, or culture outside the ad business. Removing spam shouldn't be this hard. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:44, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually, Thought leader is a term for an entity that is recognized for having innovative ideas. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:27, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep barely notable but has press so keep.LuciferWildCat (talk) 01:01, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Coverage amounts to passing mentions and name-drops, if that. If sources cannot be provided that discuss the subject itself in some level of detail, then the calls to keep do not rest in reality. Tarc (talk) 13:40, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, coverage is trivial and fleeting. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:39, 28 January 2012 (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.