Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Soulflower brand

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. ✗plicit 13:33, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Soulflower brand[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

[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)

The en.wp article Soulflower has been created and deleted a number of times without a formal deletion discussion. In my in opinion, an articles for deletion discussion would appear to be appropriate here, if only to address its WP:NCORP concerns. Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 11:17, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nommed, and agree with the rationale, better than another speedy. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:21, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sir, I am not related to the company or brand and each time I improve my article, it gets speedy deletion instantly. I believe there is nothing in my post that is promoting the brand and if there is anything like that, I am ready to remove that part. Sandipan1997 (talk) 11:32, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The page should not be deleted 2409:40C0:1031:410:A84C:B5FF:FEED:4738 (talk) 11:42, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see no advertisement in the page 2405:204:2003:8A7D:0:0:BBE:E0A0 (talk) 12:21, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Page is relevant and useful 219.91.244.26 (talk) 12:18, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think the post is okay and it should be there 219.91.244.26 (talk) 11:45, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This page is fine 2405:204:20A6:1284:0:0:2389:40AD (talk) 12:05, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is fine and relevant 2409:40C0:100D:2143:EC7B:A8FF:FE66:4920 (talk) 12:06, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The brand's founder needs to be noted. Everything else is fine 2405:204:22AC:DCD5:0:0:66B:60A5 (talk) 12:13, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

i agree that the page should be there 2409:40C0:4D:6C84:44F4:60FF:FE41:39F5 (talk) 12:15, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment all the IPs above have no other edits outside this AfD. Also note that Sandipan1997 has been blocked for self-promo. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:38, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. All the current references are interviews/press-releases, with a strong probability that they were actively prompted by the company, and with no independence. My google search turned up their products on amazon, a lot of completely unrelated stuff, and the most abysmal review of their ethics by their employees at glassdoor.co.uk, which is neither relevant nor something the article's proponents probably want to see used. With no independent sourcing, we can't have an article. Elemimele (talk) 20:41, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless WP:Library convinces us otherwise. (To the IP participants above: This is exactly the same kind of fluff they talk about at Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions.) --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 22:22, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks reliable and independent sources. Fails WP:GNG. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 03:50, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree with the comments above, no evidence of reliable and independent sources covering this "company."Esolo5002 (talk) 04:17, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Maharashtra. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:37, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes It's independent source Mridhamalay82 (talk) 12:27, 16 May 2023 (UTC)— Mridhamalay82 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Checkuser note:. Confirmed sock. Courcelles (talk) 15:20, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are references from India Today and The Economic Times which are independent news magazines. I do not know why these channels are deemed as not independently and not reliable sources Sandipan Banerj (talk) 12:59, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser note:. Confirmed sock. Courcelles (talk) 15:20, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG it is also promotional in tone and would need a complete re-write with reliable sources to fix that. --VViking_TalkEdits 13:05, 16 May 2023 (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.