Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Your Kids 'R' Our Kids (YKROK)


 * 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 delete.  MBisanz  talk 20:40, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Your Kids 'R' Our Kids (YKROK)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:NOTPROMO, fails WP:CORPDEPTH. No assertion of notability, Most sources that refer to the company fail RS. MSJapan (talk) 23:27, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:50, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:50, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete It is a daycare center organization. Noting notable about it about centre.Fails WP:CORP ,WP:NOTPROMO and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 14:43, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:33, 6 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete Many of the sources in the article are not reliable, and those that are do not offer any substantive coverage: just passing mentions. Vanamonde (talk) 17:10, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete -- non notable day care center. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:20, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Falls short of WP:CORPDEPTH by a wide margin. Nothing else indicates why this is "notable either". This is a pretty good example if Wikipedia being used a business listing. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:42, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. There are currently some good sources linked on the page, with significant coverage in reputable Indian publications:, , . The others on the page are mostly press releases, but even if the press releases were removed and the content scrubbed, there would still be enough to pass WP:GNG. Cleanup wouldn't be hard, the page is still small. Yvarta (talk) 01:16, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Did some wikifying. Also think I'll remove the COI tag, as there isn't much on the page left that could be polluted. Worth re-adding the tag if that editor becomes active on the page again. Yvarta (talk) 01:36, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * A small comment about the COI tag as I see that you have just started editing a week back. We usually remove the tag when 2 things have been done: 1. A disclosure by the editor has been completed and 2. The promotional content has been removed. If both these steps have not been done, the tag is supposed to be removed only by consensus. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 01:55, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I have actually edited here for many years (don't judge an editor by their account/IP/age ;b ). You are of course more than welcome ot re-add the tag if you still feel it is necessary, though please note: 1) there is no point waiting for editor admission, as most COI editors are short-term and often never reply, nor are they obligated to, and 2) what promotional material is left? I cleaned it carefully, and I thought I had left it simple facts. Yvarta (talk) 03:21, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * As for your sources, these don't pass WP:CORPDEPTH. This is a local news article "cities section" and we discount these.  The coverage here is limited to 1 word.  This is a 3 sentence routine news coverage. None of these help to satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:02, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Hmm. On this one, I didn't notice it was a local section, my apologies. If you have it on hand, would you mind directing me to the guideline that clarifies the use of local sections on national papers? I haven't read that one in a while. However, these articles still look very significant to me, so I am confused by the second half of your argument:
 * (coverage significant in Economic Times, a national newspaper - I suppose you could argue this is a routine announcement of some sort, though to me it seems a proper article.
 * , you're right, this one is trivial and not helpful
 * , again right, I missed that this one is trivial.
 * I'll look around for another source or two. The Economic Times article hints to me there's a good chance of other significant coverage in sources not in English, so I'm still hesitant to throw the baby out with the bathwater on this one. Yvarta (talk) 03:32, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * This Economic Times article had one word about the subject - or one sentence if I am a bit liberal. This is not significant coverage. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:04, 8 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete. the only sources are mention or advertorials, sucha s the one in New Indian Express.  DGG ( talk ) 05:47, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
 * ’’’Comment’’’ - Did another search, without much luck. I did find two mentions in ‘’Daily News and Analysis’’, I’d say in the middle zone between trivial and semi-significant coverage:, and . I’ll leave my keep vote for now since I think from a certain perspective the topic barely scrapes by in reaching “3 good sources or large-scale trivial coverage,” but I can understand why editors would vote delete as well. I suspect it might be notable in the relative near future, since newspapers seem mildly interested by the company’s partnerships with big corporations. Yvarta (talk) 23:30, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete, the company does not appear to be notable, at least for now.Tazerdadog (talk) 14:06, 10 August 2016 (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.