Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PTron (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. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 15:18, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

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

small company,$7 million in sales; the references are either trivial announcement of individual products or PR,  DGG ( talk ) 03:33, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions.  CASSIOPEIA(talk) 05:59, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  CASSIOPEIA(talk) 05:59, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

We don't pass WP:NCORP based on less or more turnover but by Significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. -- Harshil want to talk? 13:43, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep It passes WP:GNG and has significant coverage in reliable sources. Here is analysis...
 * Keep a notable Indian company which has coverage across various newspapers. Telangana Today is a reliable source which describes the company well in detail. Economic Times and The Hindu Business Line describe the company's overseas venture. There are other sources which I did not add to the article such as this tech magazine. More sources can be found. Converting sales revenue from rupees to dollars will make it look like a small company because of India's currency value. Among Indian companies, this is one of the top brands for mobile and electronic accessories. For example, Deccan Chronicle says "PTron, a brand that needs no introduction in the mobile accessories space" and India TV calls it "India's fastest-growing mobile accessories brand" .. Ibiza Gnome (talk) 08:11, 23 October 2019 (UTC)


 * India has billionaires, and also very large enterprises. We can make some adjustments, but not so far as this.
 * As for the Deccan Chronicle quote, any newspaper article which includes the line " a brand that needs no introduction in the mobile accessories space" is advertising, even if the nature of public relations is such that newspapers can be induced to write it in a news story.  DGG ( talk ) 02:34, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * We can make some adjustments, but not so far as this. Which adjustments are you talking about? Is there any specific policy which says only billionaire company can have article? -- Harshil want to talk? 16:05, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete per DGG.4meter4 (talk) 03:21, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I have removed product announcements and added more sources that describe the company in detail. Ibiza Gnome (talk) 11:37, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26  (spin me / revolutions) 21:32, 29 October 2019 (UTC) <div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:58, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep If I am being honest it was the chart above. GNG met. Lightburst (talk) 03:23, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete The analysis provided by incorrectly omits to check for "Independent Content" and incorrectly applies the criteria for "Significant". Checking for "Independent" does not simply mean checking that the publisher is "independent" from (i.e. has no corporate links with") the company but that the *content* is also Independent. WP:ORGIND defines this as follows:  Independent content, in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject.  So when you see that Harshill69 has indicated that (for example) this news18.com reference as meeting the criteria for "independent" and yet the article is based on an announcement from the company and largely consisting of a quotation from the CEO of the parent company, you know the analysis is bad. So, here is the analysis redone to correctly account for Independent Content, in-depth coverage (of the company) and "significant" coverage (which also states the article must be "Independent of the subject" (i.e. Independent Content):
 * Keep the article passes WP:GNG making an SNG - NCORP WP:CORPDEPTH argument moot. Actual policies WP:PRESERVE WP:ATD WP:NOTPAPER Wm335td (talk) 21:51, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Response How can an article pass if there are no sources that meet the requirements for establishing notability? There is a common misconception that NCORP is *different* than GNG but it is not - NCORP explains GNG in the context of companies/organizations. "Wishing" NCORP as irrelevant is naive and unsupported by our own guidelines. If you wish to argue for keep then the onus is on you to put up references that establish notability. <b style="font-family: Courier; color: darkgreen;"> HighKing</b>++ 12:40, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete, company lacks in-depth sources to pass WP:GNG, balant use of platform. Meeanaya (talk) 03:52, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak keep - There are a couple of decent sources like Telangana Today and ET which have significant coverage of the company. Dee  03  16:37, 11 November 2019 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.