Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Buldana Urban Cooperative Credit Society

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The result was Keep, nomination withdrawn. WP:Non-admin closure. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 11:41, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Buldana Urban Cooperative Credit Society[edit]

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

Notability concerns, borderline G11 candidate. Laun chba ller 12:43, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:35, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:35, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The Times of India article and the chapter in Redefining Management Practices and Marketing in Modern Age are both strong indications of notability, as are the awards listed under "Awards and Achievements". Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:59, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete - the company is notable as evidenced by the sources discussed by Eastmain. However, this could easily be a promotional brochure produced by the company, and I can't figure out a way to re-write this article to eliminate the advertising without completely starting over. Therefore I don't think the G11 is even borderline. 78.26 (His Wiki's Voice) 14:14, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I thought putting just "G11 candidate" would be a bit WP:BITEy, though certainly it falls under WP:TNT. If you think that the article meets the criteria for speedy deletion, put a G11 tag on it.--Laun chba ller 15:37, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd prefer that someone more familiar with the subject than I, or someone more creative, rescue the article. I'm not !voting "speedy" because hopefully this process will help rescue what I think is a notable topic, and a speedy delete eliminates that possibility. But as it stands the article does not make Wikipedia better. 78.26 (His Wiki's Voice) 16:16, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm leaning to a weak keep. Ordinary editing can slice out whole sections, so WP:TNT may not be needed. Bearian (talk) 18:47, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I thought at first, also. However, which section *isn't* promotional? I couldn't find one. 78.26 (His Wiki's Voice) 18:58, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I cut out a lot of the cruft. Bearian (talk) 19:16, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because of Bearian's edits, and I have further removed the most blatantly promotional material. Because it is notable, I am changing to keep. 78.26 (His Wiki's Voice) 19:53, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Much, much better. Considering withdrawal per WP:HEY.--Laun chba ller 21:18, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Withdrawn per WP:HEY.--Laun chba ller 10:17, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Well pruned, chaps and chapesses. I accepted this WP:AFC article knowing it needed a radical pruning, and that it would not ever get one while in the approval cycle. Even so, the topic was notable if one could only get rid of the 'stuff'. Now the article is manageable, and adequate. The references allow it to be retained. It has sufficient notability and that is already referenced in WP:RS. Fiddle Faddle 23:06, 18 June 2014 (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.