Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Telecommunications Consultants India Limited

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. J04n(talk page) 19:17, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Telecommunications Consultants India Limited[edit]

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

no indication of meeting WP:ORG. Only independent reference is a story that the government might sell some of it. Disputed prod. noq (talk) 17:33, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

merge to Department of Telecommunications. Seems an obvious solution. DGG ( talk ) 02:42, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

KeepIts a government company,qualifying as a PSU,most definitely passes WP:ORG and merge to DoT page is also not in order as it has enough qualifying references for it to hve its own page.Uncletomwood (talk) 03:38, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Being government owned is not a notability criteria, not sure what you mean by PSU and no-one has suggested merging. The article has one independenet reference which is discussing the government possibly selling part of it. noq (talk) 11:43, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Because it is a 'government company' is an odd argument or reason for keeping this page. It is a POV, which does not assert notability per WP:GNG. The relevant government department, in this case the Department of Telecommunications (DoT) which has its own very short article, could , ideally, be expanded to include information about this company and its activities, which can actually be summed up in a very short paragraph. It would also give the DoT article more substance. I note, too, that, much of the article on this company/consultancy looks like an edited version of what appears on its own official website. Hence, providing the link to its website in the DoT article should suit all parties. I see no justification for retaining this article, whatever a PSU is! If we started having articles on all companies or consultancies because they are owned, promoted or sponsored by their respective national government, there would be no end to it.--Zananiri (talk) 13:18, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Article is provided with details now. Hope it is sufficient for future improvement of the article. Consider for retaining the article.Rajaram Sarangapani (talk) 09:15, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think there is now sufficient information to justify an article. DGG ( talk ) 19:34, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep now with the recent improvements. I was going to say merge but not after the recent improvements. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:03, 25 May 2013 (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.