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. LizRead!Talk! 04:54, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There's a lot of PR sources - some explicitly labeled so, others given away by promotional text. Couldn't find anything to pass WP:NCORP. hemantha (brief) 04:01, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – As per WP:THREE, with these sources: [1], [2], [3], extra: [4]. I had also added a few google book sources ([5], [6]) when I had made improvements to the article last week. The company's finances are also covered in an Economic Times profile: [7]. On the existing aritcle, I don't know if mentions in these market/complaint reports count: [8], [9]. I suggest stubifying it to the reliably sourced material. If the article absolutely needs to be deleted, please draftify it instead. I am happy to take up the challenge of improving it, but I won't be able to hunt for offline sources at the local library or Times of India office for the next several weeks at least. Thanks! 2405:201:1006:E03A:54AD:9797:B968:CB1D (talk) 06:13, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Notability requirements for companies is much more demanding than WP:GNG. None of the links you mention (many are already in the article) pass the requirements of NCORP. For eg, ToI article on an award by a little known society is promotional and does not appear independent (it all started, the uniqueness of these products, established new standards, the most modern way). Business Line and the two Financial Express articles are routine product launch coverage. ET/BI profiles are basically just pro-forma stock pages. I encourage you to read WP:NCORP once carefully. (I also note that your sources aren't quite the ones to pass WP:THREE; none are independent) hemantha (brief) 06:37, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:58, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "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. That means, nothing that relies on company information or announcements or interviews, etc. None of the references in the article meet the criteria. I have been unable to find any references that meet NCORP criteria, topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing++ 08:47, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 23:28, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Like HighKing, I am not seeing anything here that is both reliable and passes SIGCOV or such. The company exists, but it doesn't seem notable enough to warrant a Wikipedia article. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:36, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with logics given above. Laptopinmyhands (talk) 02:29, 18 February 2022 (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.