Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inkfruit (2nd nomination)


 * 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   no consensus. — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 15:00, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Inkfruit
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable per WP:CORP. Essentially spam and it is incrementally turning WP into a business directory rather than an encyclopedia. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:37, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 5 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Weak delete We have usually regarded the Economic Times as a responsible Indian newspaper, but their story of the firm does look very much like a PR placement, and there's nothing else reliable.  DGG ( talk ) 00:08, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep other than that Economics Times article see Reuters India, Mid-Day, Times of India etc. --Tito Dutta (talk) 18:21, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 21:32, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

 
 * Titodutta, the second link doesn't work as it's a duplicate of the Reuters link - but the other two links are good sources and I am leaning keep for this if it is correctly rewritten, the self-referencing is cut out, and these reliable sources are used to improve the article and its references. Mabalu (talk) 00:10, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:09, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran  ( t  •  c ) 11:31, 25 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep per sources provided by Tito D. above. The first one is pretty much all I need to see after being underwhelmed by the article's sourcing showing in the footnotes. Carrite (talk) 18:39, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete Thought long and hard about this one, having glanced at Tito's sources. Unfortunately, on closer inspection I didn't find anything that wasn't already in the article's footnotes. The first reference is a press release by VCCircle.com, reprinted in Reuters India and . The second may have been to, which sounds promotional, or this , an article on crowdsourcing - where the company is a partial case study. The Times of India piece is another namedrop reference; the company being mentioned in one line mid-article. Can't find any other vaguely reliable sources and with lack of significant coverage, I can't see it passing WP:GNG. Funny  Pika! 07:45, 26 January 2013 (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.