Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Organic India


 * 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. After more sources were found, at least.  Sandstein  19:01, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Organic India

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Notability not established since Dec 2010. Just two references about some company in two newspapers is not enough for an article to be in an encyclopedia. Page is short and have not been edited since december 2010 (other than by bots). Content does not establish notability other than declaring that it is a certain company doing something at some place. Austria156 (talk) 09:02, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete: Not notable. Google search turned up scant mention of this company besides advertising and its own PR materials. The sources provided for the article do not establish that the company is anything but a run-of-the-mill food supplement distributor. Furthermore, they all seem to have been written using the company's own PR materials as the main source. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 09:28, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - See my !vote below. More reliable sources that address the topic significantly have been found, and added to the article. Northamerica1000 (talk) 12:16, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 20:24, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 20:24, 15 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Weak Delete — There has been a sufficient coverage the company has got, including an article about itself in The Economic Times. And, Notability is not temporary, which can be used for this case, with regard to the guideline, which says "once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage.".  X.One   SOS  04:51, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The Economic Times article reads like armchair journalism. It appears that the writer relied heavily (exclusively?) on material provided by the company itself. He neither mentions nor even implies that he used other sources except one farmer, and that information may have been supplied by OI as well. It reads like a testimonial. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 07:44, 17 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Week Keep: Sufficient notability for article's existence proven by reliable sources. The newsreport taking information from subject's own PR sites cannot be the reason for calling the subject unworthy. The fact that these newspapers decided to write about the subject itself made it notable. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 17:45, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Leaning keep - I see quite a bit of material on Google Books and Google News, at least some of which is pretty direct in scope. —  C M B J   03:41, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talk about my edits? 14:38, 24 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - Topic passes WP:GNG, per:
 * — Northamerica1000 (talk) 12:07, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * — Northamerica1000 (talk) 12:07, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * — Northamerica1000 (talk) 12:07, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * — Northamerica1000 (talk) 12:07, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * — Northamerica1000 (talk) 12:07, 26 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep I agree that there seems to be sufficient sourcing. DGG ( talk ) 06:24, 1 February 2012 (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.