Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anant Bhatt LLP

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. The "keep" opinions don't cite any specific reliable sources. Sandstein 07:02, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anant Bhatt LLP[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

No indication of notability per WP:GNG or WP:NCORP. Sources provided do not appear to significantly discuss the company (at least based on the title - some are inaccessible without a subscription). ... discospinster _talk 16:52, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 16:52, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 16:52, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Hi, most newspapers in Kenya now require a subscription to view articles. This is due to the fact that Nation Media Group has a large monopoly. The company in question is well mentioned, but those reviewing wiki references won’t be able to view them without paying. The article shouldn’t be deleted, and future articles referencing Kenya issues may also face a similar problem in proving authenticity. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by The inquisitive reader (talk • contribs) 18:14, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for the same reason mentioned above. I'm going to do some digging myself, might be able to find more. Megtetg34 (talk) 15:33, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 20:10, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The criteria for establishing notability for companies/organizations as per WP:NCORP is for multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. None of the references in the article meet the criteria and even looking at articles that are now "behind a paywall" such as this in The Standard and this in Nation Africa (which doesn't even mention the company) and having searched further online, I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria. If someone wants to post a link to a reference they believe meets the criteria, please do so. Topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:12, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:27, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per HighKing and the fact that we shouldn't have any articles without a lead or containing the phrase "tender age of 22". Lettler^{hello • contribs} 19:35, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - like HighKing, I can find no sources that cover the company in-depth, and therefore go towards showing notability if we're going by NCORP. Likewise for the general notability guideline, significant coverage in multiple, independent sources does not appear to exist. ƒirefly ( t · c ) 12:43, 6 April 2021 (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.