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. I see a clear consensus here. Owen× ☎ 13:34, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

STONEX India (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH. Page is promotional WP:PROMO. Indian media sources should be viewed carefully, as they often present press releases as news WP:RSNOI, WP:ROUTINE. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 09:44, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, India, and Delhi. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 09:44, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - promotional style is visible but plenty reliable sources are present and the page requires clean up more than removing. --Kej Keir (talk) 08:11, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Kej Keir, can you please list the numerous reliable sources present in the article for other editors to evaluate? Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 20:10, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Blocked for spamming. MER-C 13:26, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Unable to identify any source that satisfies WP:CORPDEPTH. The content is supported by churnalistic articles and listings on e-commerce sites like Justdial.com and Indiamart.com, falling well short of meeting WP:NCORP. Yuvaank (talk) 15:26, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I made extensive research to find reliable sources and added two books that provide significant coverage. These sources now clearly meet the NCORP criteria. In addition to a few weaker references, there are also some important and useful ones that fulfill CORPDEPTH requirements—particularly several local newspapers that offer much deeper, independent context. --RodrigoIPacce (talk) 19:18, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  RodrigoIPacce, could you mention the sources that you believe provide deeper and independent context for other editors to evaluate? The Business World article you added is a trivial mention and the ProjectX India edition is merely a company listing. These do not offer significant coverage. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 20:17, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Blocked sock. MER-C 13:31, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• 'Keep' Initially, I thought it would be easy to delete; however, after evaluating the sources (including newly added ones), I found sufficient coverage in reliable sources to justify keeping the page on Wikipedia. Taking off shortly (talk) 08:20, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting per WP:REOPEN as an uninvolved administrator in my individual capacity, per discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2025_January_6#STONEX_India.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 14:27, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete A lot of this material looks like the sort of undisclosed promotional content warned of in WP:RSNOI although the Adobo article does, in fact, look legit. That being said a single good source is insufficient to establish sustained and lasting notability. Willing to change !vote if additional reliable sources are brought forward. Simonm223 (talk) 14:34, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: There is no independent coverage of this company. All we have are some interviews with the founders, partnership announcements, database listings and press releases. None of these sources pass the WP:SIRS check, so they are ineligible towards GNG. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 05:07, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. None of the sources meet WP:SIRS. I agree about the Adobo article singled out by Simonm223; still, it's about a single commercial and is not useful for establishing notability. It actually isn't possible to write a reasonable and non-promotional article on this topic using these sources. I can't find any better sources.—Alalch E. 12:55, 11 January 2025 (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.