Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Karbonn Mobiles


 * 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 keep.  bibliomaniac 1  5  21:11, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Karbonn Mobiles

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Looks like a non-notable company. Article is sourced to routine listings, press releases and a product review. Not enough to fulfil WP:NCOMP criteria in my view. — kashmīrī  TALK  21:24, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. —  kashmīrī  TALK  21:24, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —  kashmīrī  TALK  21:24, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete per nom. - Hatchens (talk) 06:29, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep I went thru the existing sources, plus there are at least a few more (in doing a basic Google search) such as this, this and this that help the article achieve notability. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 09:56, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep The article may be in bad shape but it passes GNG. Shanze1 (talk) 05:57, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:45, 9 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete A page which has been existing at WP since 9 years has just 9 unique refs. Furthermore these 9 refs appear to be plain promotional PR activity:
 * which has been deliberately mentioned twice to superficially increase the number of refs is non existent. Similarly is also non existent. is extremely glorified and fails WP:NPOV. is WP:UNENCYC since it has nothing notable to offer. has been mentioned in the article under the tab "History". I have never seen such kind of chicanery to promote a subject. This ref is just about promoting the subject and has nowhere historical information.
 * is about a product launched by the subject company. Such kind of refs does not ensure WP:INDEPENDENT. is a ranking report made by Trust Research Advisory, an enterprise whose WP page was speedily deleted as it was ""blatant advertising, used only to promote someone or something"". Similarly is a ref from the same enterprise and moreover this ref is no more in existence.

A user mentioned a ref above:. I would like to draw your attention that this is a paid media coverage and is evidently cited at the end: (This story has not been edited by Business Standard staff and is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.) and completely fails WP:RELIABLE. Thereafter the user mentioned, which is fails WP:RELEVANCE and is WP:UNENCYC & Out of scope since it just talks signing a sponsorship deal. All refs are WP:HOAX and requisite deletion.

Yourmasterishere (talk) 16:44, 10 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep well-known Indian mobile company. Easily passes GNG with sources like and . There are also plenty of reviews of mobiles made by them in reliable media. SD0001 (talk) 13:44, 16 May 2020 (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.