Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sundaykart

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. Black Kite (talk) 09:10, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sundaykart

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

Not enough independent reliable coverage for this to pass WP:GNG. sst ✈ 16:18, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 16:19, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 16:19, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 16:52, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What is the problem with this page, why you people recommended to Delete This, the data in this page has good Quality If Any one specify the Problem then any one may Correct the Page, Please Explain the Problem and provide any solution to for not to deletion of this page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Royalprince474 (talk • contribs) 17:08, 16 October 2015 (UTC) — Royalprince474 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete. No independent sources cited in the article, and scarcely any coverage in reliable independent sources found on searching. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:00, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now and draft and userfy as there are simply no signs of better improvement and coverage but feel free to draft until a better article is available. SwisterTwister talk 05:26, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

keep The Article is good and the date about this article is true and genuine data, in feature some will do edits to improve this article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.205.20.163 (talk) 07:06, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

— 49.205.20.163 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

keep please keep this article i will provide the more Information regarding this article, thanq — Preceding unsigned comment added by Royalprince474 (talk • contribs) 07:33, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

— Royalprince474 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

keep keep it any one may improve this article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phanendhra7 (talk • contribs) 13:39, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

— Phanendhra7 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Speedy delete. spam for unnotable entity. . . Mean as custard (talk) 13:43, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~keep~~ So many improvements were done, Reference Links Added, Content Modified, category Added.. Keep the Article in database more improvements will done as per Wikipedia Norms — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phanendhra7 (talk • contribs) 17:50, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have already told us once that you want the article kept. You are welcome to add further comments, but please don't post multiple bold "keep" notes. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:34, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: searches suggest that significant coverage in independent, reliable sources sufficient to meet the notability guideline for web-specific content are not found. -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 07:20, 24 October 2015 (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.