Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Uni Abex

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 no consensus‎. Closed due to a lack of input. No prejudice against renomination. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:00, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Uni Abex

[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)

Lacks Notability. Sources are either primary or in the form of press releases. There is promotional intent too. Rahmatula786 (talk) 11:34, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Products, Engineering, India, Karnataka, and Maharashtra. Rahmatula786 (talk) 11:34, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nominator. The current references are company profiles/press releases and/or are too short. WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 11:36, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:16, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I see no reason that this "lacks notability". The current state of the article is poor and needs better sourcing, per WP:V, but that's not the same thing. Clearly this company exists, has existed for a long time, and is substantial (market cap of >500 Crore / £4B). Given that the article was only created today, I'm in no rush to delete it on such a weak basis. Editors are always welcome to do some of the legwork here and help to expand coverage. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:44, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Simply existing or existing for a long time does not automatically mean that a subject is notable. A market cap of >£4b - while quite large and impressive, does not signify coverage in reliable, secondary sources, although it is expected that there would be such. Unless further sources are presented, there is no real reason to believe that the subject is notable by means of WP:NCORP or WP:GNG. WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 15:23, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The references provided in the article, are company's biography or 'Self Published'. I can not see any substantial coverage that satisfies GNG criteria. Rajeev Gaur123 (talk) 13:02, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify Needs to go back to draft to see if it can be improved. Sourcing looks weak and needs wider coverage, if it is be seen as notable. Currently reads like an employee wrote it. Ramos1990 (talk) 09:31, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 11:31, 19 May 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.