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

Lenskart

AfDs for this article:

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Repost by blocked user of previously deleted and salted material. Sources are almost entirely routine coverage of funding rounds, interviews with the founders, or otherwise lacking in independent content. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:23, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The user who created this article has been blocked, and it is entirely ROUTINE. Mikeycdiamond (talk) 21:22, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. Shellwood (talk) 21:47, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Haryana-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:09, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. For more context on the history of this article, it was accepted through AfC after approval by the administrator who deleted it (DGG).

[1] is definitely SIRS coverage. Website is bylined, has editors/editorial policy [2], and the idea that this story is routine or consists of interview content is absurd. Reliable source ✓ independent ✓ significant coverage ✓ secondary source ✓

[3], another reliable sources with a byline, editorial policy and has substantive critical analysis. Reliable source ✓ independent ✓ significant coverage ✓ secondary source ✓

There is even coverage in academic contexts, e.g. here [4]. Reliable source ✓ independent ✓ significant coverage ✓ secondary source ✓

And in this book Breaking the Mould by two economists published by Penguin Random House, [5]. Reliable source ✓ independent ✓ significant coverage ✓ secondary source ✓ Katzrockso (talk) 00:55, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

More academic research I found in a five-second google scholar search [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]. I find it strains credulity to think that every single of these plus the many other mentions I found are all unreliable. Katzrockso (talk) 00:59, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Sources found by Katzrockso seem good, with the exception of the first source, describing a legal dispute, which does not count towards NCORP per WP:ILLCON. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 04:56, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — per the sources and academic research cited by Katzrockso, the subject satisfies WP:NCORP. EmilyR34 (talk) 05:34, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]