Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AWK Solutions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. The "keep" arguments by the Special Purpose Accounts are not convincing. MelanieN (talk) 23:39, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AWK Solutions

[edit]
AWK Solutions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Rejected PROD. Very promotional;potentially non-notable article.  I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 21:15, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 21:15, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 21:15, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP:I would like to contest this deletion on the below grounds.If this article is very promotional in nature, then how come the below articles are still available in wiki without any deletion or proposed deletion. Most of the below mentioned articles have external references, that is not relevant at all.

Most of them are solution provider, but they still exists here 

     a) Cashkaro.com

     b) Buyhatke

     c) Mysmartprice

     d) Abhibus.com

     e) Cardback

     f) Amrita Learning

     g) Quikr


Please help me understand why this selective approach for proposed deletion in case of my article ? Where as many other are published without any problem. If you want i can give you more examples like that. --Startupindia (talk) 12:47, 11 February 2016 (UTC) — Startupindia (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Can you really not see the difference between self-published material and solid sources? Your article has 12 references -- 2 from AWK's home page, 4 from social media, 3 press releases (published on sites that exist solely for the publication press releases), a directory entry, and two that don't mention AWK at all. None are from indendent, reputable sources. Looking at the others you mention, we see:
I hope you can see from this that no one is being "selective" -- the AWK article simply does not meet the general notability guidelines. ubiquity (talk) 17:14, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you are considering Business Today The Hindu and The Economic Times as neutral & reputable views, I totally agree with you. This company also have mentions on The Hindu. Getting it on Business Today is matter of 48 hours. Please give me a day's time, I will take confirmation from the owner and include those links as reference.

So I hope that this can be considered for non deletion, after the references had been updated on the article. --Startupindia (talk) 20:26, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:35, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • STRONG KEEP: The coverage is quite good enough. further this company has quite a big coverage in local media and newspaper, which don't have any online presence. If sources like The Hindu is considered as a source of reputation, then the references provided in the he article also needs to be considered as a source of reputation. Because The Hindu also lives solely on press releases. I think it is time to reconsider the list of reputable sources for India.--Rajanmittal21 (talk) 20:09, 19 February 2016 (UTC) — Rajanmittal21 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Delete I have to go with what I see from the US search perspective -- which is only social media and the company's own web site (which I can barely access because it acts oddly in my browser). The sources cited here are all press releases, from what I can tell, and eight of them have almost exactly the same title, meaning that if they aren't press releases, they are re-hashed press releases. The text is highly promotional, with statements like: "their solutions and development are perhaps the best in the segment" "delivered some of the best solutions in this new dimensional segment". I honestly think the article would be speedy deleted as PROMO. LaMona (talk) 02:24, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:59, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:59, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I would argue that this article isn't promotional. I would strongly argue that a client base of 200+ in addition to a timeframe of 24 months is worth being notable and credible. These facts certainly needs to be considered in the Wikipedia tests for inclusion. Again, examples of lesser publicized companies that have met Wikipedia's test and have long standing in the encyclopedia community.--Vcom1983 (talk) 11:28, 25 February 2016 (UTC) — Vcom1983 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/AWK_Solutions&oldid=1069071584"