Content deleted Content added
125.17.228.74 (talk) No edit summary |
m Signing comment by 125.17.228.74 - "" |
||
Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
:'''DileepKS'''([[User talk:DileepKS69|talk]]) 10:59, 31 March 2011 (UTC) |
:'''DileepKS'''([[User talk:DileepKS69|talk]]) 10:59, 31 March 2011 (UTC) |
||
Dileepks, Thanks for the clarification. I believe I can get the numbers soon. Till then let it stay. |
Dileepks, Thanks for the clarification. I believe I can get the numbers soon. Till then let it stay. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/125.17.228.74|125.17.228.74]] ([[User talk:125.17.228.74|talk]]) 11:36, 31 March 2011 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
Revision as of 11:37, 31 March 2011
India: Kerala Stub‑class Mid‑importance | |||||||||||||
|
Employee strength in Infopark.
Mr Dileepks, The employee strength figures in Infopark is quite unbelievable. In a report dated 21st may 2009 it is clearly mentioned that the strength is around 8000 (http://www.thehindubusinessline.in/2009/05/21/stories/2009052150781700.htm). There is no proof that employee strength almost doubled to 15000 in hardly one and half years. I believe the latest report is just a figment of imagination from the reporter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.88.239.184 (talk) 09:36, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
- Dear IP Editor. There are very many things editors believe, but for Wikipedia, it is the credibility/acceptibility of sources that matters. The Hindu is a reputed news paper, and the figure comes from its reporter. It is clearly reported as a fact, not as an opinion, either of the reporter or a reported party. Such news are routinely accepted as valid reference for articles. I can show you many examples of such use. I can also show you arguments by a number of editors supporting the use of Hindu reports as reference.
- It is a valid reference, as long as another reference contradicts it. Do you have any source that contradicts this number?
- DileepKS(talk) 10:59, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Dileepks, Thanks for the clarification. I believe I can get the numbers soon. Till then let it stay. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.17.228.74 (talk) 11:36, 31 March 2011 (UTC)