Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EFC Ltd

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 speedy delete. WP:A7 NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:08, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

EFC Ltd[edit]

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

Contested CSD over sources being present in the article. Google doesn't show much in terms of independent coverage, and the source provided in the article is a PR-esqe interview. Also nominating Umeash Sahhaaii the CEO of this company, for similar reasons:

Delete as it should have been deleted under A7. No actual reliable sources, no claim of significance and a search gives tons of unrelated results and absolutely nothing that would establish notability for the subject. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 22:50, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG, it should have been deleted under speedy delete. ThatGirlTayler (talk) 13:25, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The log of April 1 is overfilled
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 14:19, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 15:16, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 15:16, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both the article on the firm and its founder: Press releases and blog posts are not adequate. The best source provided is a softball Q&A piece on the firm's founder, which is PR rather than substantial critical coverage. My searches using the tailored Indian search on both EFC and Eldil are finding nothing better. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 15:34, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SNOW - a full AfD process isn't going to make a difference here. No credible claim of significance in either article when the A7 speedy was declined - if there is then please point one out if I've missed it. I'd ask the person who declined the Speedy to explain himself but it'd just be a load of pointless "I can't hear you. Look at this essay someone wrote that backs me up". Exemplo347 (talk) 16:59, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's exactly how it would go. Lol. ThatGirlTayler (talk) 17:12, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I get the frustration, but one of the reasons I started this AfD was because I didn't want the conversation on the talk page of the user in question to devolve, because that has never really been helpful to any party in the past. I'm in agreement that the article should be deleted, but think we should try to keep the drama off of the AfD. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:16, 2 April 2017 (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.