Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Atul Auto

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. Star Mississippi 16:33, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Atul Auto

[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)

Sources do not meet WP:ORGIND, topic is therefore not notable. No significant coverage in reliable sources either. ––FormalDude ^talk 04:35, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ––FormalDude ^talk 04:35, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ––FormalDude ^talk 04:35, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:05, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Based on the below sources, I consider it to be in WP:ORGCRIT borderline. The news item noted in the table has been widely covered by local media. I don't know the language, so I presume there may be more to be found there plus it's WP:LISTED, which pushes me to vote keep. Hemantha (talk) 14:21, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
2/5 passing sources is a pretty weak justification for a keep vote. Also, you make no mention of why you think the sources meet WP:ORGIND, which is the reason that I am saying is why the topic is not notable. All you did for was make a chart with an independence column and put 'y'. The sources are too promotional. ––FormalDude talk 06:32, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
All are well-established publications (I've linked to their wiki pages for exactly that reason) and have no discernible relation to the subject. I haven't checked for authorial independence per ORGIND because it's impossible. I can only say that their hiring by reputed media houses hints at their independence. The other 3/5 are partial; WP:BASIC allows for combining multiple sources. Hemantha (talk) 08:22, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ref	Notes	Significant	Independent	Reliable	Secondary	Result
Hindu Business Line Profile	in-depth coverage with history, mkt share, products	y	y	y WP:THEHINDU	y	pass
profile from Forbes India	Forbes India is messy now, but this is from 2014, covers history, ops, previous failures	y	y	y	y	pass
profile of CEO from Chitralekha (weekly)	history from a regional perspective	y	y	maybe	maybe, author uncredited, promo/interview tones	partial
News from Dainik Bhaskar	covers their most famous product, its cultural impact	y	y	maybe, author uncredited	y	partial
News from Sandesh	coverage of same event as DB before	y	y	maybe, author uncredited	y	partial

Keep WP:LISTED company passes WP:GNG, WP:NCORP. Enough citations available while doing a search to justify its notability.DMySon (talk) 05:48, 9 January 2022 (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.