Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aptech (2nd nomination)

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. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:26, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aptech

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

It is six years since this article was last discussed. It still seems spammy in tone and lacking in independent references. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 12:51, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep:- I easily found sources in multiple independent reliable sources that established the subject notability, such as The Guardian Nigeria, The Economic Times, The Shillong Times, The First Post, The Economic Times, Franchise india, The Business Tribune, The Economic Times, NDTV, Hindu Business Line, Times of Indian, Business Standard, The Economic Times, Times of India to mention few. Trout slap to RHaworth for such a ridiculous nomination. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 18:22, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:50, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:50, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:50, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets WP:CORPDEPTH: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:27, 8 July 2015 (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.