Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kalyan Silks


 * 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 per WP:SK. Nomination withdrawn with no outstanding delete !votes. (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica1000 02:09, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Kalyan Silks

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable, appears to only be WP:PROMO. I notice [ this was deleted before]; I wonder if this is a recreation of the same thing. Meteor sandwich yum (talk) 17:47, 4 April 2014


 * KEEP Notable Company. Uncletomwood (talk) 18:13, 4 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep does appear to be covered in reliable sources (e.g. Textile Trends, Volume 49), as far as company articles go spamwise, this one is pretty decent. WorldNewsKid (talk) 21:18, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:19, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:19, 5 April 2014 (UTC)


 * KEEP Kalyan Silks is one of the largest organised textile chains in South India. It is like Trent (Westside) for Tata Group. The only problem is that it doesn't belong to Tata or Birla or Reliance. But it has a huge fan following in the retail world. Smokingsingh (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 16:50, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: Although Smokingsingh is permitted to cast a vote, it should be noted that they are also the creator of the article. Meteor sandwich yum (talk) 17:08, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * KEEP The article has reliable sources(The Hindu is a notable newspaper in India) and Kalyan Silks is actually a notable company.--Skr15081997 (talk) 12:31, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - The subject meets Wikipedia notability guideline for companies and organizations. It has significant coverage in the multiple reliable sources as such,, , , , , , , , and . I'm all set to assume that the nominator did not perform WP:BEFORE, before nominating this article for deletion. If the present articles includes some promotional contents or wp:peacock terms, it is subjected to discussion on the article's talk page. WP:Deletion is not cleanup.  Anupmehra  - Let's talk!  22:27, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment Hmm. I concede completely, withdrawing my deletion request in full. Appears to be my mistake. I see it has been covered by more than 3 independent national newspapers, which should be more than needed for the General notability guidelines for articles.
 * I know nothing about the company. From an outside point of view, it looks promotional, rather than informative, and so didn't understand that it really is notable. I passed over the references much too quickly and thought it was just a spam page, re-created. Meteor sandwich yum (talk) 23:48, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
 * KEEP I have no further concerns about the article as OP; I now believe I was unobservant, and new to discerning between genuine notability and meaningless spam. Meteor sandwich yum (talk) 23:48, 11 April 2014 (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.