Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Infraline Energy


 * 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 redirect to Leakgate (India).  So Why  09:25, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Infraline Energy

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Primary sourced promotional article on a very small Indian company. No secondary indication of notability. Yes, it exists, but is it encyclopedically notable, and does it adequately demonstrate this? Andy Dingley (talk) 07:57, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 08:48, 23 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment: There is some Hindustan Times coverage in Feb-Mar 2015, such as "Delhi Police crime branch to quiz Infraline Energy MD" and "Leakgate: GMR, Infraline Energy under lens", but that may be too much about one related event. AllyD (talk) 08:59, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * ! That might explain why the author of this article hasn't used such sources! Andy Dingley (talk) 09:35, 23 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete - Most of the coverage is about the arrest/scandal. Not entirely sure how Infraline is a dynamic and vibrant organization which believes in innovation and growth, which was pretty representative of the rest of the article in tone, isn't obvious advertising, but otherwise it's a promo piece from an obvious COI account about an unremarkable mid sized company. Timothy Joseph Wood  11:03, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm inclining towards keep. When I first looked, I went through my sources for energy consultancies (I work around that field) and it failed for any real notability. After AllyD's comment though, I started to look at Indian politics and there's rather more coverage there. If Leakgate (India) was judged notable, I think this might be too - or at least, as a section within a Leakgate article. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:11, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * There's probably a strong argument that the scandal itself is notable, and that seems to be the problem with the sources, they are about the scandal and not really about the company. In other words, the coverage of the company seems to largely or entirely be incidental to the coverage of the scandal, and what's really needed to establish notability is coverage of the copmany as a company. Timothy Joseph Wood  12:16, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually, now blue linked. Timothy Joseph Wood  12:39, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:59, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Redirect to Filegate Leakgate Leakgate (India) with brief mention there. — usernamekiran (talk)  17:59, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Merge to Leakgate (India) Andy Dingley (talk) 18:34, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades Godric  17:37, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete as spam, with such copy as:
 * "It is self-funded company in the world. It addresses the requirements of over 600 plus organization, including public sector undertakings..."
 * No value to the project at this time. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:59, 5 June 2017 (UTC)


 * 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.