Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Satish Sugars

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. Consensus is that there is not enough independent source material to write an article on this company at present. – filelakeshoe (t / c)  14:26, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Satish Sugars (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)

Does not appear to pass WP:CORP. No other references other than company website, search on google news does not yield any good sources. Darylgolden^(talk) Ping when replying 05:43, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:47, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:47, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:47, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: While the article's references are currently lacking, a quick search found several references that are independent and reasonably in-depth: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] --Hazarasp (talk) 05:54, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: To the extent that coverage mentioning this firm is available, it tends to be about concerns about concentrated politico-economic power and payment levels to farmers ([6], [7]). Of such matters, there is no mention in the article, which reads like a corporate website and is a good illustration of why articles written by connected contributors tend to be deficient in meeting WP:NPOV. AllyD (talk) 13:01, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - there are no independent references in the article, and it is promotional, violating WP:NOT. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 14:22, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: It is possible that a WP:NPOV article could be achieved by stripping out or rebalancing the article material which sings the praises of the company with the other coverage which I mentioned above. However even if volunteer effort was to be committed to such remedial work, it is not clear that what would be left would be more than a note of a WP:RUNOFTHEMILL company. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 08:06, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: few independent, reliable sources have covered the company in any depth. This is a review aggregator site with no editorial oversight and this, while from the Times of India, is merely an auto-generated sorting list. The only source which gives any sort of valuable media attention is this but still fails depth of coverage standards. DrStrauss talk 09:03, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Applying TNT to see what is left… L3X1 (distænt write) 12:32, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Answer: not much. GNG. L3X1 (distænt write) 14:12, 13 September 2017 (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.