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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:06, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

IndiaFilings.com[edit]

[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)

Not notable, probably an Advertisement by the company. KnightMight (talk) 16:16, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Websites and India. Shellwood (talk) 16:37, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Tamil Nadu. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:45, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I see some reliable sources, such as The Hindu Business Line, The Economic Times, Business Standard India, and The New Indian Express, have covered various facets of the company. --Mozzcircuit (talk) 08:40, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep As well as the sources mentioned by Mozzcircuit, IndiaFilings has also been covered by The Times of India. Some of the sources in the article seem a little promotional/frivolous, especially the paywalled Economic Times articles, but generally I think this company has just about enough significant reliable coverage to warrant an article, unless non-independence of sources can be proven. pinktoebeans ^(talk) 14:02, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Times of India source is basically the press release from [1] with some VERY minor changes. If this had been pasted into an article here, it would have been reverted and rev-deleted as a copyright violation. It's published on TOI, but it's just a press release. Ravensfire (talk) 21:48, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:30, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not meet WP:CORP. There are zero WP:SIRS sources meeting WP:CORPDEPTH. I checked all in the article (including the ones I removed because they didn't verify attached claims) and did a cursory BEFORE to seek others. The only potential ATD would be a one-sentence merge to DBS Bank#India, but that may be UNDUE. —siro χ o 23:48, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is no coverage outside of routine announcements, publicity and press, interviews, etc. I believe it's not suitable for inclusion at this point in time. Alpha3031 (t • c) 10:15, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Looks Clears the bar of WP:CORP, WP:SIRS and WP:CORPDEPTH. Here are some sources I have found- 1. The Hindu. 2. Economic Times. 3. New Indian Express. 4. Economic Times. 5. New Indian Express. 6. Economic Times.Bekujoq (talk) 09:04, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Here's a source assessment table. —siro χ o 09:30, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table: prepared by User:siroxo
TH NARAYANAN V[2]	depends heavily on voice of founder, doesn't meet SIRS	?	~	✘ No
Economic Times, Vinay Dwivedi[3]	as above	?	~	✘ No
New Indian Express, Praveen Kumar[4]	as above	?	~	✘ No
Economic Times, Maleeva Rebello[5]	as above	?		✘ No
New Indian Express, "ANI"[6]	WP:NEWSORGINDIA paid news	WP:NEWSORGINDIA paid news	~	✘ No
BT, Binu Paul[7]	depends heavily on voice of founder, doesn't meet SIRS	?		✘ No
Business Standard[8]	heavily dependent on business partner	?	No CORPDEPTH but could be used to add a sentence to DBS Bank § India	✘ No
BW, Resham Suhail[9]	fully an interview with employee	?		✘ No
Free Press Journal, FPJ Web Desk[10]	WP:NEWSORGINDIA paid news	WP:NEWSORGINDIA paid news	~	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using ((source assess table)).

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if those editors advocating Keep care to respond to the source assessment table.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:29, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete agree with source analysis - all coverage reads as a press release. BrigadierG (talk) 23:27, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete based on the source table above. Most of the sources look like press-release stuff. Oaktree b (talk) 00:48, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All PR sourcing, fails ORGIND/NCORP/GNG. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:54, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per source analysis table by Siroxo. Looks PR sourcing.❯❯❯ Chunky aka Al Kashmiri (✍️) 09:35, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
((vd)) based on the source analysis and my review of the sources. Too much fluff, not much actual stuff from an independent secondary source. The original work feels like WP:UPE. Ravensfire (talk) 21:50, 11 September 2023 (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.