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 speedy keep. (non-admin closure) (non-admin closure) — DaxServer (talk · contribs) 19:15, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oneindia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Appears to fail WP:NCORP - of the four sources, only The Times Of India appears to be worth for establishing notability, and one < three. casualdejekyll 22:16, 29 January 2022 (UTC) Withdrawn- Djm-leighpark has convinced me that Oneindia is a keep casualdejekyll 19:04, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:05, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:05, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:05, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:06, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:07, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:12, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The Times of India is here giving coverage of a routine business action, even. Nothing notable here, this exists as covert marketing. FalconK (talk) 00:47, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: At this point on a quick scan no evidence a BEFORE was carried out. In general there is always a concern when established news outlets are targeted for deletion like this, be they good, bad, useless, biased etc. Appears to fail NCORP is too weak to nominate and reasonably clear the books links was not booked at I am finding 10.1007/978-3-030-44563-8 P.170 on it which looks RS. Indufficient time to dig further currently. Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:34, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Currently waiting for download so I can read that and see if it's RS. If I find that it is, I'll probably withdraw nom - however, just noting that the last AfD was made by a sockpuppet, but if it wasn't it looked like consensus was to delete. Of course, that was last year and things can change over time. casualdejekyll 18:59, 30 January 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.