Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Policybazaar India

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) Rainbow unicorn (talk) 21:03, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Policybazaar India

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

Fails WP:CORP notability requirements. There are sources but they are overwhelmingly about routine business transactions such as funds moving around between companies. The section on their "present and future" is incredibly weak, with a WP:CRYSTAL statement on when they are expected to reach profitability, and mention of their advertising firm (!). In summary, WP:TOOSOON for an article on this organization. Brianhe (talk) 19:46, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the 2013 Business Standard article source titled "From aggregation to distance marketing" superficially appears to be what we'd expect in a good corp article; however, it fails WP:ORGIND as basically a reprint of a softball interview with the CEO, with very little added information under the newspaper's editorial control. – Brianhe (talk) 20:06, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Mr RD 19:55, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Mr RD 19:56, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of website-related deletion discussions. Mr RD 19:56, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This company is notable and we can get enough coverage of it in independent media. Arguments like WP:CRYSTAL or WP:TOOSOON may not apply here because company is already existing, any weak sections can be improved and any promotional matter can be removed. --Human3015^TALK 20:09, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Don't know who created it or what was his intention/relation with the company but the company is fairly notable, here are the citations at different times which proves its WP:CORP notability: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]. Mr RD 20:18, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You just regurgitated the same types of sources, and in several instances the very same sources I said were bad, without saying why you think they illustrate notability. - Brianhe (talk) 20:23, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This may have been a recreation of the previously deleted Policybazaar (deleted twice in 2009 and once in 2010). Brianhe (talk) 22:10, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously in 2009 and 2010 it was not notable company. But now it is. One of well known Indian celebrities like Kapil Sharma is brand ambassador of the company now. Read this new from India's largest Economic daily The Economic Times. Even they are calling it "popular insurance portal". Many sources are already given by one of above user. That news also says that Temasek Holdings of Singapore is investing in Policy Bazar.--Human3015^TALK 23:01, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep if at all but this could also be drafted and userfied until better as the best I found with "Policybazaar India" was at Books, News and WP:INDAFD. SwisterTwister talk 05:33, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:48, 15 October 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.