Talk:Indigo Paints

Reasons for CSD
If anyone disagees with my assessment, then feel free to contest the CSD or add follow-on comments over here. And, in case, any support/help is required from my end... I would be happy to oblige.-Hatchens (talk) 03:46, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Classic case of WP:ADMASQ - The page mostly contains news of company's latest IPO, fund raising activities and investors.
 * Lacks WP:SIGCOV/WP:SIRS
 * Possible WP:COI - Because, the creator of this article has been earlier involved in pushing a deleted company page into main article namespace.
 * , I do contest this CSD, while I do very much understand the concerns of promotionalism, I feel that there is enough sourcing to showcase notability, and that the article is not promotional enough for deletion to be the best course of action. I feel as though an AfD would be better at determining if there actually is enough coverage for notability, and if the promotionalism is excessive enough to warrant deletion. Devonian Wombat (talk) 07:42, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * @, I second you... on this. You can take the call, You've my support. - Hatchens (talk) 08:19, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Contested deletion
This page should be retained because it provides high-quality information on Indigo Paints. The company is notable, has received significant coverage from independent and reliable sources, the article content is non-promotional, and the creator of the article has no conflict of interest. --Amishah78 (talk) 07:45, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Dear, thank you for contesting. I think you need to read more about WP:RS, WP:RSP and WP:SIRS. In case you get stuck somewhere, please ping me. - Hatchens (talk) 08:37, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, many thanks for sharing the reading list. The links that I've provided below are aligned with the guidelines; I've used them as references while creating the article draft. Additionally, the company is WP:LISTED. -Amishah78 (talk) 09:14, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Contested deletion
Not a candidate for speedy. Passes WP:NCORP and WP:LISTED. Here are WP:THREE sources   --M4DU7 (talk) 07:52, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , First link is OK as it is written by Forbes staff. But, the other two links are the research documents written by the investment houses for advising prospective investors. Together these links do not satisfy WP:THREE. - Hatchens (talk) 08:25, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi - please take a look at these sources    . These are articles by Forbes, BloombergQuint, Business Standard and Financial Express. - Amishah78 (talk) 09:04, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * That's exactly what an "analyst report" is. Quoting WP:LISTED: "sufficient independent sources almost always exist for such companies, so that notability can be established using the primary criterion discussed above. Examples of such sources include independent press coverage and analyst reports." (emphasis mine) M4DU7 (talk) 20:09, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , Most of the analyst reports do mention the name of the authors. I concur with your assessment! Keep up the good work. - Hatchens (talk) 03:52, 1 May 2021 (UTC)