Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tekfusion

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. czar 08:27, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tekfusion[edit]

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

dubious notability, promotional, unreliable and/or first party sources FASTILY 07:45, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I do not consider this article promotional, as Tekfusion is a notable audio brand in India since 2011. If that was the case, you should also delete most American audio company's pages from Wikipedia, so that the readers will have no information about them as well. Please remove your notice from the top of that page, as it holds no grounds. Also, I would like to inform you that the more information is provided on notable companies in India, the better for those who are seeking information, which is what Wikipedia is for, and this article, at least according to my knowledge, seems like it was created in good faith and in no way seems to be promotional. If there is any promotional material on it, you should help improve the article by removing the promotional content and justify your actions rather than calling the entire article unreliable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RaviKumar86 (talk • contribs) 09:32, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide some reasoning based on policies and/or guidelines. Even better, please provide some references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 15:16, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The coverage of the company's information on sites like HindustanTimes and IndianExpress - two of India's most popular news websites, and on TheQuint - India's popular digital media journal website is an indication that the company has had a decent coverage from unbiased news websites. Also, full company's journals are available on websites like TheStartupJournal and TechStory which are noteworthy as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RaviKumar86 (talk • contribs) 06:20, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In order to understand the criteria for establishing notability, you must *first* look to see if the source in a reliable secondary source (and I'm sure the newspapers and digital journals you have mentioned are fine in this regard) but you must *then* look to see if the article (the reference) published by the source is "intellectually independent". For example, an article that relies on a press release, company announcement, product launch or corporate website fails the criteria for establishing notability. Similarly an article that simple relays quotations from company officers or investors fails the criteria for establishing notability. The references you have provided fail the criteria for establishing notability - mainly the criteria found in WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 09:52, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify your doubt, I do not see if the articles mentioned are relying on press releases or announcement, otherwise I wouldn't have provided those references in the first place, and I'm very well aware that articles that rely on press releases or product launches do not meet notability criteria. If you could pin-point any particular articles that you feel is relying on a press release, then we can prune it off the article, rather than just delete the entire article. Thanks!— Preceding unsigned comment added by RaviKumar86 (talk • contribs) 15:28, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:07, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:07, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG and WP:SPIP, references fail WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 15:16, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Inadequate sourcing for notability, as Highking has explained in more detail. DGG ( talk ) 01:13, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on the grounds given above and a strong suspicion of puppetry. Cabayi (talk) 18:31, 29 August 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.