Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/STONEX India

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 keep‎. per Keep arguments and added sources (non-admin closure) BoraVoro (talk) 08:52, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

STONEX India (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH. Page is promotional WP:PROMO. Indian media sources should be viewed carefully, as they often present press releases as news WP:RSNOI, WP:ROUTINE. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 09:44, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, India, and Delhi. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 09:44, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - promotional style is visible but plenty reliable sources are present and the page requires clean up more than removing. --Kej Keir (talk) 08:11, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Kej Keir, can you please list the numerous reliable sources present in the article for other editors to evaluate? Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 20:10, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Unable to identify any source that satisfies WP:CORPDEPTH. The content is supported by churnalistic articles and listings on e-commerce sites like Justdial.com and Indiamart.com, falling well short of meeting WP:NCORP. Yuvaank (talk) 15:26, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I made extensive research to find reliable sources and added two books that provide significant coverage. These sources now clearly meet the NCORP criteria. In addition to a few weaker references, there are also some important and useful ones that fulfill CORPDEPTH requirements—particularly several local newspapers that offer much deeper, independent context. --RodrigoIPacce (talk) 19:18, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  RodrigoIPacce, could you mention the sources that you believe provide deeper and independent context for other editors to evaluate? The Business World article you added is a trivial mention and the ProjectX India edition is merely a company listing. These do not offer significant coverage. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 20:17, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• 'Keep' Initially, I thought it would be easy to delete; however, after evaluating the sources (including newly added ones), I found sufficient coverage in reliable sources to justify keeping the page on Wikipedia. Taking off shortly (talk) 08:20, 6 January 2025 (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.