Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/5paisa

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. As Scope creep has pointed out, this is a discussion, not a vote, and the more comprehensive arguments put forward by those advocating deletion have not been refuted. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:33, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

5paisa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't meet the polices: WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. Generic run-of-the-mill references. scope_creep^Talk 21:21, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:27, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:27, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As per nom. Promotion of a company. Priyanjali singh (talk) 10:34, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Do not delete. This Wikipedia page is for a discount stockbroking company 5paisa, a subsidiary of full service stockbroking company India Infoline. This is not an advertisement, therefore, it is suggested to edit the contents of the page to suit wikipedia standards so that it does not look like an advertisement. For your reference, other discount broking companies in India are Zerodha, Upstocks, SAMCO Securities, Alice Blue, Fyers etc. and most of these companies have wikipedia pages. –Brar ^(Talk) 10:21, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument Spiderone 12:04, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - The subject of the article is obviously notable. A quick Google search reveals mentions in all major Indian media houses. Just because the subject of the article is a for-profit commercial enterprise doesn't imply that the article too is self-promotion or advertisement. Stensrim (talk) 09:44, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:SIRS. Mere mentions alone in Indian media houses do not necessarily guarantee notability. Spiderone 12:07, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Looking at each reference in turn:

• [1]] . standard notices, brief announcements, and routine coverage, such as of changes in share or bond prices, Fails WP:CORPDEPTH
• [2] standard notices, brief announcements, and routine coverage, such as of changes in share or bond prices, Fails WP:CORPDEPTH.
• [3] standard notices, brief announcements, and routine coverage, such as of changes in share or bond prices, Fails WP:CORPDEPTH.
• [4] of a capital transaction, such as raised capital Fails WP:CORPDEPTH
• [5] other listings and mentions not accompanied by commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH
• [6] of the expansions, acquisitions, mergers, sale, or closure of the business, Fails WP:CORPDEPTH
• [7] Press release. Non-RS.
• [8] of a product or a product line launch, sale, change, or discontinuance, Fails WP:CORPDEPTH
• Press release. Non-RS
• [9] Fails WP:ORGIND.

The references are run of the mill business news that fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. The other refs are the same. scope_creep^Talk 23:58, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Has received coverage from all major Indian newspapers and magazines. Therefore, we cannot consider any outcome other than Keep. -112.79.85.37 (talk) 05:54, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User is a SPA who has created no other edits on Wikipedia. scope_creep^Talk 07:33, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I completely agree with scope's assessment of the refs above. There is no significant coverage from reliable secondary sources here and the keep votes, some of which seem to be from SPAs, don't provide any sources that satisfy the criteria. Spiderone 12:06, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep - All the delete voters are obviously and clearly biased in their viewpoint. And so what if some votes are from SPAs. Everyone gets to have their say in Wikipedia, atleast in principle. 192.12.109.33 (talk) 13:16, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello IP Editor. It may come as a bit of surprise but WP:AFD is not vote. It is a discussion. So diving in, head first with Strong Keep' without rational thought to back it up, in relation to our notability policies is no use really. It doesn't benefit anybody. scope_creep^Talk 14:27, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion. I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, references to date fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic therefore fails GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:00, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.