Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kenscio

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. JohnCD (talk) 14:15, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kenscio[edit]

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

I have not found any reputable source that could support the notability of this company. A speedy delete template for G11 (promotion) was removed (two times) by an anonymous IP user and I think that a PROD could be opposed by someone. I'm nominating the article for deletion so that a more general consensus about the subject notability can be reached. LowLevel73^(talk) 12:23, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Self-serving advertisement. No independent coverage from newspapers or journals.ShoesssS ^Talk 12:31, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable, promotional. NawlinWiki (talk) 14:56, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A WP:SPA article on a firm whose coverage falls short of demonstrating achieved encyclopaedic notability. AllyD (talk) 15:47, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
very weak keep as it is reported on one website (http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2014-10-06/news/54691305_1_quikr-investec-foodpanda). If another source or two could be found, I'd change to a solid keep. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 18:04, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Promotional, non notable. The only source is [1] which does not pass WP:GNG and WP:COMPANY. ΤheQ Editor ^Talk? 21:52, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of adequate sourcing and being promotional Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:52, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:COMPANY and WP:GNG and is Promotional.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:22, 31 October 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.