Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KDK Softwares

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. asilvering (talk) 03:35, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

KDK Softwares

[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)

See previous deletions. Unable to meet WP:ORGCRITE. This is a promotional article as well. B-Factor (talk) 09:18, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Software, India, and Rajasthan. B-Factor (talk) 09:18, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi B-Factor,
I’ve made several updates to the KDK Softwares article to address the concerns you raised regarding notability and promotional content.
1. Notability: I’ve added independent sources, which provide coverage of the company’s history, partnerships, and industry role, which I believe satisfies the notability criteria for organizations (WP:ORGCRITE).
2. Neutrality: I’ve reworded sections that previously may have sounded promotional.
3. Citations: I’ve ensured that every single sentence in the article is now backed by a citation, and the references are from independent, reliable sources.
I believe these changes address the concerns and ensure the article meets Wikipedia’s standards. Please review the updated version and let me know if there are any further issues that need to be addressed. ShaliniTaknet (talk) 06:12, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 14:04, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: correct title for article appears to be KDK Software, which was speedy deleted as spam in 2011. I can't find SIGCOV in reliable secondary sources to show how this meets WP:CORP, just passing mentions like this, interviews and paid placement like this, and social media. Sources cited are press releases and run-of-the-mill coverage verifying that the company exists, but now how it's notable. Wikishovel (talk) 15:24, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, thanks for the input. I'm not sure why the page was created in 2011, since the notability of the company only increased only after 2017, hence the speedy deletion at the time is quite justified. For the latter points, I beg to differ since the sources cited are not just press releases or routine mentions. For example, The Hindu and Press Trust of India independently covered Intuit’s acquisition of KDK Softwares, which is a significant event in the industry. Empanelment by ICAI is another major highlight in the Indian taxation industry, especially after the launch of the new tax regime which posed significant complications and resistance among professionals. Coverage in BusinessLine and ThePrint also to some degree highlights not just the company's presence but its nationwide impact on tax professionals. S.Taknet (talk) 06:03, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I believe it should not be deleted. It is a notable company in the Indian market, especially in tax field. The article has citations from independent and well-known sources. Its acquisition by Intuit and affiliation with association like ICAI and AIFTP, also, supports its notability.Thecoolfactfinder (talk) 08:58, 25 January 2025 (UTC) — Thecoolfactfinder (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For policy based input
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 16:04, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The article satisfies inclusion criteria under WP:ORGCRITE, as it demonstrates significant coverage (SIGCOV) in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. While some sources may provide routine coverage, there are multiple instances of non-trivial, independent reporting that establishes the subject's notability:
- WP:SIGEVENT: The acquisition by Intuit was covered by The Hindu (among others), which is a reliable, independent source. This is a significant event in the Indian software and taxation ___domain.
- WP:RECOG: Empanelment by the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (ICAI) and affiliations with All India Federation of Tax Practitioners (AIFTP) shows recognition by notable entities within the industry and impact on the Indian tax ecosystem.
- Independent Coverage: Publications such as ThePrint and BusinessLine provide contextual analysis of the company’s role in addressing post-GST compliance challenges, which is non-routine and shows KDK’s nationwide impact on tax professionals.

Substantial efforts have been made to ensure the article adheres to WP:NPOV and WP:V. Content that could be sounding promotional has been removed, and every statement is now supported by citations from independent, reliable sources.

Given these points, the article meets the general notability guideline (WP:GNG) as well as the subject-specific notability criteria for organizations (WP:ORGCRITE). S.Taknet (talk) 06:26, 27 January 2025 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: S.Taknet (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. AI-generated !votes would likely be discounted as they usually are not policy-based.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:26, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The article meets wp:orgcrite with solid sigcov in multiple independent reliable sources. while some coverage is routine but there’s enough depth to establish notability. The intuit acquisition was covered by the Hindu, which is a well-regarded source and the event itself is quite significant in indian tax/software industry. The ICAI empanelment and MoU with AIFTP also show industry recognition as covered by The Print and Business Line. The company has also had impact in post-GST era in Indian taxation, by launching standalone free support and help services and then launching their product for GST compliance in alliance with ICAI. For wp:npov and wp:v, there doesn't seem to be any fluff or promotional content and everything is backed by solid sources meeting the wp:gng and wp:orgcrite policies so there’s no real reason to delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by S.Taknet (talk • contribs)
- This is a duplicate vote from the article's creator. Please strike one as you may only!vote once. Star Mississippi 13:33, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Regurgitated company announcements do not meet the criteria for WP:ORGIND WP:CORPDEPTH (indepentent content, significant coverage). The references rely entirely on company provided/produced information, most are based entirely on announcements/PR and quotes from execx without any independent content. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:58, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your concern. However, some of the sources, like the Times of India article on the Intuit acquisition, and the coverage of ICAI, are independent and are not company PR. While the article could benefit from more in-depth coverage for WP:CORPDEPTH, these references do show significant events and KDK's role and notability as an organization in Indian taxation and software industry. I’ll keep working on improving the article with more independent sources.

Thanks S.Taknet (talk) 12:31, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you should look closer at the articles? The Times of India article has no Independent Content whatsoever and mostly regurgitates this Press Release dated the previous day. Which particular parts of the article are you claiming is "Independent Content"? You also mention the "coverage of ICAI" but the linked PDF in the article simply mentions the company in passing, completely fails CORPDEPTH. My "concern" is not that the article could "benefit" from "more" references, but that the article does not contain a single reference which meets the criteria. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:10, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your continued feedback. I really do see the issue here now. The coverage by The Times of India, though independent, was primarily based on the PR provided by Intuit. However, the association of the company with Indian taxation and other Apex bodies like ICAI, AIFTP, ASSOCHAM, do show company's notability to meet WP:ORGIND, and GNG. Besides, to align with WP:CORPDEPTH, I've found and added another reference from the Business Today magazine. It's the first citation on the article. S.Taknet (talk) 09:21, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. None of the references meet the criteria as they're all based on announcements and PR, no independent content. As an alternative, could be redirected to Intuit. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:58, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your feedback. I understand your point that the citations used don't offer an in-depth biographical exploration of the company for WP:CORPDEPTH, but rather focus on key events like the Intuit acquisition, empanelments with ICAI, AIFTP, and collaborations with organizations like UBS Forum and ASSOCHAM. That being said, I still believe together these help illustrate the company's significance in the Indian taxation and compliance tech and thus help meet GNG/WP:NCORP criteria.

Regarding the suggestion to redirect the article to Intuit, I can see the reasoning behind it. However, I believe KDK Softwares' distinct contribution to the Indian taxation through partnerships and initiatives - warrants a separate entry. That said, I'm open to further refining the article to better align with Wikipedia’s guidelines or to incubate it until further sources aren't curated. S.Taknet (talk) 11:40, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In order to support an editor's opinion (e.g. KDK's "distinct contribution") and meet the criteria for company notability, we require references. Is there a reference which meets GNG/NCORP guideines which says that? I've responded to your appeal that certain articles meet notability criteria above (they don't). Before listing more references and asserting that perhaps they meet the criteria, it will save time if you list a reference while at the same time pointing to specific parts of each reference that you believe contain in-depth independent content. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:10, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the response. I would like to clarify how the provided sources meet WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. Per WP:GNG, notability is established through significant coverage in reliable, independent sources that provide more than trivial mentions and the articles by independent sources (albeit based on announcements or mentions) like The Hindu, The Times of India are far from trivial. They highlight notable events like acquisition, and partnerships with prestigious organizations (ICAI and AIFTP). Similarly, in line with WP:NCORP, a company that receives significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject can establish notability. KDK software's involvement in a notable events, recognition by apex bodies of the nation, and it multiple launches of technological innovations in the highly regulated industry Taxation in India clearly demonstrate its importance in the niche. As mentioned in the other comment, to support WP:CORPDEPTH I've cited a reference from Business India.

I truly appreciate your time and feedback and look forward to improving the article further in collaboration with the community. S.Taknet (talk) 10:00, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your response but you haven't addressed the "Independent Content" aspect of WP:ORGIND nor addressed the unavoidable conclusion that once you exclude the content that is not independent, the remaining content fails CORPDEPTH. HighKing⁺⁺ 09:34, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the feedback. Just to clarify, I did address the "independent content" aspect of WP:ORGIND. These are covered by multiple reputable outlets like The Hindu, The Times of India, and Business Standard. While the coverage was triggered by Intuit's PR (not KDK Softwares), it was picked up by these outlets due to the significance of the event. Simply being based on a PR doesn’t make the coverage non-independent.

There’s no exclusion of any content or source. Instead, for CORPDEPTH, I added the Business India article, which provides detailed coverage of the company and its founder. Additionally, the other sources—such as product launches, recognition by ICAI and other apex bodies, and the company’s role (though not big) during the rollout of the country’s biggest taxation reform—further add depth and highlight KDK’s relevance and contributions to the industry.

Please do let me know if further clarification is needed. S.Taknet (talk) 12:54, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect to Intuit. Poor sources on the page mostly on the company getting acquired by Intuit. Fails WP:NCORP. No significant coverage to pass notability. RangersRus (talk) 19:38, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comment. I’ve recently added an independent source from Business India that offers detailed coverage of KDK Softwares for WP:CORPDEPTH. And yes, the Intuit acquisition is an important part of the company’s history. However, KDK’s independent role in the Indian market, its collaborations with industry organizations like ICAI and AIFTP, plus the PAN-nation assistance in the rolling out of historical taxation update (GST), justify a standalone article per WP:NCORP S.Taknet (talk) 10:04, 7 February 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.