This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Business. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

1. and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
2. You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Business|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Business. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.

Further information

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:

• WikiProject Deletion sorting/Business/archive
• WikiProject Deletion sorting/Business/archive 2
• WikiProject Deletion sorting/Business/archive 3

Droom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:NCORP Page creator is already blocked for undisclosed payments. I don't understand how this page is accepted in AFC. Company is just promoting themself. | News about Sandeep, nothing to do with company, 2nd link | No insights by a journalist, self spoken content, | PR Driven content, with no author, [1], [2], News about cancelled IPO, [3], | again routune coverage of finance & funding, | PR Driven future plans, which acutally never happened, [4], PR Announcement., | again annoucement , | Same news about the founder Lordofhunter (talk) 08:57, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Business, and India. Lordofhunter (talk) 08:57, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Teenager Business (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Non-notable self-published book. I redirected it to the author (of dubious notability as well), but was reverted. Sources are extremely local, and the sources from WSAZ and WDTV are identical anyway. Book has gotten no further attention at all[5], all we have are some "local person did something", similar to how such sources would describe the show of a local amateur theatre group or some other minor event or happening. Fram (talk) 14:30, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Business. Fram (talk) 14:30, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete support deletion for reasons outlined by Fram. Insufficient coverage to suggest that the book is notable. The article gives very little meaningful detail about the book, beyond that it is self-published and available for purchase on Amazon.

  Boredintheevening (talk) 15:22, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: The Herald Dispatch is the only "review" I can pull up. We're now three years later and nothing's been published, no book reviews, or any critical notice. Likely not passing notability for books and I don't see anything beyond a flash of publicity when it came out. Oaktree b (talk) 15:50, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: One of the citations was a duplicate of the other - it was the same story, just published in two slightly different websites. It looks like it's a case of news outlet and its affiliate using the same stories. I also removed the mention of this being available to purchase on Amazon. That's kind of a given of any book published in the US, that one could buy it somewhere and including it can be seen as promotional - I'm including this here to be transparent about the changes. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:00, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There just isn't any coverage out there that wasn't already in the article. This has received little coverage, all of which is very local as stated by Fram. Now local coverage can still be used, it just might not always be as strong as a non-local source. In this situation the coverage just isn't plentiful enough to establish notability. TBH, the author's article is of also dubious notability given that the sourcing on that is also almost entirely local. The only non-local coverage isn't about the person in question but rather a protest in which they were a participant. It's unclear if they were one of the people who planned the walkout or a participant who was interviewed - the sources I can access are kind of unclear. It's already covered in the school article as well - could use a few more lines about the walkout and lawsuit. It looks like that's the only thing he's received any sort of non-local coverage for. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:12, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Agree as per nom. If this book turns out to be a bestseller and if it can be a good yardstick of how a self-help inspirational life journey book should be something in the mould of Mark Manson's The Subtle Art of Not Giving a Fuck, then it may warrant a standalone article in the future. But for now, it can be regarded as a typical case of WP:PROMO. Abishe (talk) 16:21, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of West Virginia-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:47, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Noritsu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This is a vintage article from 2005 when Wikipedia was more interested in articles of almost any standard rather than those which show verified notability. Acknowledging the old saw that AfD is not cleanup, this article requires either a strong dose of WP:V which is almost entirely absent, or deletion because any pass of WP:NCORP is not verified. WP:HEY is a sensible outcome. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 23:13, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and Japan. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 23:13, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Photography, Health and fitness, and Companies. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:22, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep: i found these sources Yahoo Finance, These The Nikkei sources (which is paywalled) 1 2, Sankei Shimbun, Reuter JP. There is some others. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 11:17, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ashish Bhandari (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

The article is covered only around his appointment as CEO of Thermax company. The sources cited in the article are press releases and announcements. Fails WP:GNG. Bakhtar40 (talk) 08:02, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Business, and India. Bakhtar40 (talk) 08:02, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Maharashtra and North Carolina. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:46, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Uplike (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:NCORP. It's already been prodded and deleted. Another user attempted to prod it again after its restoration, which was declined, but they never brought it to AfD. It may be worth pointing out that the obviously biased creator is a blocked sock. I see the article was also rather uncontroversially deleted from French Wikipedia a few years ago, slightly after the most recent prod attempt in enwiki (their notability guidelines seem about the same as ours), and it doesn't appear to have gotten any additional coverage since that discussion. — Anonymous 21:30, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Companies, Products, Technology, and France. — Anonymous 21:30, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Nothing found in google news, google books, or newspapers.com. I added wayback machine links to two of the broken ones in case anyone else wants to do a formal source analysis, but I don't see any that check all the boxes for WP:SIRS. Most are write-ups of a few hundred words as you would expect for any start-up at a trade show/expo. [4] is a bit more detailed, but it's on what appears to be a blog that contains affiliate links. I found a few other sources: the app caught the attention of Twitter's official blog in 2015[6], the founder was interviewed in a French business journal in 2015[7], and the app was reviewed in a startup news site in 2016.[8]. Altogether though, I don't think subject meets WP:NCORP. Zzz plant (talk) 01:10, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:33, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. : As per nomination. Doesn't meet WP: NCORP ......Gauravs 51 (talk)

• Delete not meet GNG. --Loewstisch (talk) 14:16, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: The StartUpBeat review linked in Zzz plant's thorough search above said "It’s not going to win awards for originality" and I am seeing nothing in the article/references to indicate more than a run-of-the-mill startup proposition. Nor does the pivot to Botnation chatbots seem any more notable. Fails WP:NCORP. AllyD (talk) 16:21, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mortar (organization) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This article fails WP:GNG. It does not talk about why MORTAR is a significant or noteworthy organization. It also lacks high-quality sources. It has only been mentioned a couple of times in some relatively obscure articles from CNN, Politico, and other news. Mast303 (talk) 03:56, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Mast303 (talk) 03:56, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and Ohio. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:21, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, already brought to AFD before so not eligible for a Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:48, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A2Z Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Consensus has been that notability is not automatic in WP:LISTED (or any other) case. Fails to meet WP:NCORP, WP:CORPDEPTH. Indian media sources should be viewed carefully, as they often present press releases as news WP:RSNOI, WP:ROUTINE. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 10:42, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 10:42, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Haryana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:25, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:25, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:26, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:27, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Garuda ^Talk! 13:40, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rajesh Exports (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Consensus has been that notability is not automatic in WP:LISTED (or any other) case. Fails to meet WP:NCORP, WP:CORPDEPTH. Indian media sources should be viewed carefully, as they often present press releases as news WP:RSNOI, WP:ROUTINE. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 10:58, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 10:58, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Karnataka-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:19, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:24, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Fails WP:NCORP due to lack of independent in-depth sources. Imcdc Contact 13:03, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Garuda ^Talk! 13:39, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. The article relies mainly on self-published or promotional sources--Loewstisch (talk) 14:13, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is a Fortune Global 500 company with $30 billion in revenue. A preliminary Google search brings up results with analyst commentary [9] [10] and independent reporting [11] [12]. I encourage the nominator to provide evidence of following WP:BEFORE rather than simply copy-pasting the same nomination statement on every AfD. Yuvaank (talk) 21:25, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Inox Wind (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Consensus has been that notability is not automatic in WP:LISTED (or any other) case. Fails to meet WP:NCORP, WP:CORPDEPTH. Indian media sources should be viewed carefully, as they often present press releases as news WP:RSNOI, WP:ROUTINE. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 10:49, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 10:49, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uttar Pradesh-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:22, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:23, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:23, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:23, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Fails WP:NCORP due to lack of independent in-depth sources. Imcdc Contact 13:03, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Garuda ^Talk! 13:40, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Melstar Information Technologies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Consensus has been that notability is not automatic in WP:LISTED (or any other) case. Fails to meet WP:NCORP, WP:CORPDEPTH. Indian media sources should be viewed carefully, as they often present press releases as news WP:RSNOI, WP:ROUTINE. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 10:53, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 10:53, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:20, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:20, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:21, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Fails WP:NCORP due to lack of independent in-depth sources. Imcdc Contact 13:03, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Garuda ^Talk! 13:39, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Plandora (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:NSOFT; no independent, significant coverage could be found. This article was originally about a non-notable project management application, but it appears to have been recently hijacked by a different software application also named "Plandora". Neither application meets WP:NSOFT so it should just be deleted. dePRODed in 2011 by the article's creator. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 01:29, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Travel and tourism, Software, and Singapore. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 01:29, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. I wasn't able to find SIGCOV for either of the pieces of software. The original subject has some passing mentions, mostly in older sources comparing different open source project management tools, but I wasn't able to find anything approaching SIGCOV. The new subject (the travel software) appears to be very clearly non-notable. MCE89 (talk) 03:38, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Changed to keep and revert to this diff. Delete per the lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. The lead of the first version of the article said:

  Plandora is an open source tool to manage the software development process. It can be useful for teams that have problems with resource bottle-necks, parallel projects, workers in several projects at the same time, critical deadlines and project documentation demands.

  As the nominator noted, the article was "recently hijacked by a different software application also named 'Plandora'". The lead of the hijacked version of the article says:

  Plandora is a web-based travel planning application that transforms social media content into personalized travel itineraries. Developed by TBA.LABS PTE.LTD., Plandora streamlines travel planning by allowing users to capture inspiration from Instagram and TikTok, automatically extract key details, and generate editable, visually engaging itineraries.

  I was unable to find significant coverage for either of the software applications. Both do not meet Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. Cunard (talk) 06:33, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed to keep and revert to this diff per the significant coverage found by HyperAccelerated below. Thank you for finding those sources! Cunard (talk) 08:59, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Given how much software gets discussed in books, which in fairness far too many editors overlook when it comes to computing topics, it was a very bad sign when a books search immediately leapt to an 18th century work by Johann Christoph Beer (1638–1712). I concur with the above. No in depth sources for either one to be found. The older piece of software, whose creator was coincidentally the same name as the Alberto.pereto (talk · contribs) who wrote the original article, showed promise, but the supposed academic coverage in Brazil turned out to be a list of merely namechecked pieces of software given as examples of tools. Uncle G (talk) 08:27, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and revert to this diff. I don't think the travel application is notable, but the project management software has been the subject of several studies: see here, here, and here. It's not a lot, but I do believe that collectively this establishes that this meets WP: GNG, albeit barely. I think we should revert procedurally, because we can disambiguate pages rather than hijack them, but since this AfD is open, I do worry that reverting now might confuse other people who want to participate in this AfD. HyperAccelerated (talk) 05:32, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

These sources aren't really studying Plandora, they're using it as a testcase for the actual tools they're studying. I can't extract any significant coverage from these sources that can be used in the article. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 09:21, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It still counts as WP: SIGCOV. The threshold is "more than a trivial mention". These papers give software quality metrics about the code of Plandora, which is more than a trivial mention. You might find the content of these sources uninteresting, but the question we're here to discuss is whether significant coverage exists, and IMO the answer is clearly yes. Thanks. HyperAccelerated (talk) 16:45, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@HyperAccelerated Significant coverage should address the topic directly and in detail. These sources only indirectly cover Plandora, since the coverage focuses on evaluation of their experimental tools rather than evaluation of Plandora. In the first two sources, the coverage of Plandora is nothing more than raw data, which is definitely not significant. The third source contains more mentions, but it still isn't coverage of Plandora itself, it's coverage of whether the authors' SQL translation mechanism works on an example database. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 20:21, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The use of these experimental tools produce metrics about Plandora. That is significant coverage, because these metrics give detail beyond a trivial mention. The papers are primarily about new tools, but significant coverage does not necessitate that the subject be the main topic. I also disagree that any of these papers even present "raw data"; that argument might apply if the papers consisted of large copy-pastes of Plandora source code. What is happening is that the authors are describing their methodology in detail and then describing the application of that method to analyze Plandora's codebase. It does not matter whether that analysis is automated or manual -- the presence of this analysis alone establishes significant coverage. In any case, thanks for reading the sources, but I don't think we're going to reach agreement on this. HyperAccelerated (talk) 21:34, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your perspective, even though we disagree. Thanks for the discussion! Helpful Raccoon (talk) 22:00, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 07:59, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AE Industrial Partners (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:NCORP, WP:CORPDEPTH. scope_creep^Talk 13:16, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:30, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge - Merge with history to Belcan. --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:20, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:55, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Computing, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:30, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. Do not merge - better to delete. I converted this article from a redirect to a stub article on seeing that AE had bought Israeli spyware company Paragon Solutions (currently redlinked, but in my opinion notable, they attracted notice by successfully attacking users of WhatsApp on behalf of state actors; spyware in my opinion is nasty) and that the company name redirected to Belcan, one of several companies that they had owned but no longer do. I was accused (totally falsely) of possible COI; see the discussion on my Talk page for my very detailed response about this article. If the consensus is that the article is not notable, I have no particular objection to it being deleted, though I think a $6b corporation that sells spyware is notable if not admirable; but it shouldn't redirect to Belcan, which AE does not own. It's just a stub at the moment, and can certainly be expanded and improved. If it is to be a redirect, it should redirect to Paragon Solutions, currently redlinked but notable,, not Belcan. Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 21:08, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I read the Keep vote above three times and I still don't understand the point it's trying to make. We make judgments about notability based on sourcing. There are no carveouts based on arbitrary, magically made-up criteria like whether they sell spyware or bring in billions of dollars for shareholders. If you disagree, go read WP: GNG and WP: CORPDEPTH. I also don't think Belcan is an appropriate merge target. AE Industrial Partners sold their stake in that business to Cognizant last year. All the sourcing I could find is plainly routine coverage; it's not enough to establish a standalone article. HyperAccelerated (talk) 16:49, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Following my weak "keep" above, an article has just come out explaining my concerns about this company and its purchase of Paragon. Whether this is deemed good reason for its inclusion in a work of reference like Wikipedia is up for debate, but it's certainly becoming increasingly noteworthy. Kirchgaessner, Stephanie (10 February 2025). "Revelations of Israeli spyware abuse raise fears over possible use by Trump". Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 21:13, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article only mentions AE Industrial Partners once: "The person also pointed out that Paragon was now a US-owned company, following its takeover by AE Industrial Partners.". This is a trivial mention and plainly does not rise to the standard of significant coverage necessary. Do not insert any more sources into this discussion until you've read and fully understood WP: SIGCOV. Thank you. HyperAccelerated (talk) 00:21, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment It is a passing mention used in a single sentence, trivial zero information on the company. It is a complete fail of WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. I'm sure there is something else going on here. scope_creep^Talk 05:53, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:11, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 08:21, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete did not find significant coverage to establish NCORP/CORPDEPTH Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:01, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Viraj Bahl (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

The article does not meet WP:GNG as the sources mainly focus on the subject interviews and statements, without providing significant coverage. Majority of cited sources focus on Viraj Bahl company growth (revenue & product launches) rather than his personal notability as an individual. Refs (India.com, TimesNowNews, DNA India) lack depth or are promotional in tone. Coverage in outlets ( Inc42 and ET Retail ) primarily discuss Veeba as a company, not Viraj Bahl individual legacy or influence beyond his role as founder. While his role as a judge on Shark Tank India(2024) adds to his public profile, this is recent and may not yet be supported by independent sourcing to confirm lasting notability failing WP:NBLP and many of the sources here are exactly what WP:NEWSORGINDIA tells us to watchout for. NXcrypto Message 04:14, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Business, Companies, Singapore, and India. NXcrypto Message 04:14, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Made substantial improvements to the page and added multiple reliable sources that provide significant coverage and meet WP:NBASIC. There is also extensive media coverage in various local languages. Ariz Shaikh (talk) 07:49, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Can you also cite the sources that would confirm your !vote? CharlesWain (talk) 08:27, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails WP:GNG. If anyone is interested in creating an article about him then they should first try creating something about his company. It's his company that has got more coverage. CharlesWain (talk) 08:27, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @CharlesWain Indeed, and the cited references focus more on his company than on him. NXcrypto Message 16:35, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Passes WP:GNG and NBASIC with significant coverage (WP:SIGCOV) in The Economic Times, Financial Times, India Times, and Navbharat Times, as well as an in-depth article in Business Outreach. While the article has a promotional tone, this can be improved with regular editing. Baqi:) (talk) 10:22, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Where is the WP:SIGCOV? The article from Business Outreach is clearly a paid one. It cannot be considered as a reliable source. NXcrypto Message 16:27, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:26, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The above comments made in support to keep the article are unconvincing. Subject fails GNG. Agletarang (talk) 08:41, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails GNG. AgerJoy talk 08:53, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep new articles[13][14] are appearing related to his TV work. Orange sticker (talk) 12:06, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Both of these sources only have generic bylines and do not identify an individual reporter and therefore unusable for establishing notability per WP:NEWSORGINDIA. - Ratnahastin (talk) 12:37, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: This article meets WP:GNG. There is WP:SIGCOV in multiple reliable sources that focus on his personal notability. It also meets the basic criteria of WP:NBLP since the subject is notable for more than one event (again, as evidenced by the reliable sources cited).--DesiMoore (talk) 15:55, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: as Per Orange Sticker and DesiMoore, the article contains several significant coverage sources about the subject from reliable sources and plenty more online about him and his TV work. (Ref 1) The Forbes article also contains significant coverage; his name appears 28 times in the article Monhiroe (talk) 09:54, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Per above, the subject meets WP:GNG and WP:NBLP. Taabii (talk) 12:30, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Despite all the WP:VAGUEWAVES votes above (which should be discarded by the closer), no evidence has been provided for meeting the notability guideline, the sources cited in the article all have issues such as lacking bylines , promotional tone etc. as noted at WP:NEWSORGINDIA. They are unusable for establishing notability. - Ratnahastin (talk) 12:35, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails WP:GNG, citations are not independent of the person and not enough significant coverage independent of the subject. Common knowledge that Sharktank judging slots nowadays are up for sale. JustinTrooDooo (talk) 16:26, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Are you suggesting that all judges who appear on the show pay for their spots? That's your personal opinion and it's a separate discussion that would require solid evidence to back it up. Shark Tank is a popular global business show and any such claim would need to be backed by solid evidence. EmilyR34 (talk) 05:05, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Sources cited in the article like Forbes, GQ and several others are bylined, independent, and provide sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG. Bakhtar40 (talk) 10:21, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, this satisfies WP:GNG and hence it should be there on Wikipedia.Adamantine123 (talk) 14:57, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep– I respectfully disagree with Ratnahastin. The points made by the editors above especially DesiMooreo and Monhiroe regarding WP:GNG and WP:NBIO are valid and can not be overlooked. Having generic bylines does not necessarily mean an article is unreliable or paid for. The sources highlighted by Orange Sticker are neutral with no promotional tone and are totally usable here. I also don't agree with the claim that all the sources in the article are unbylined or promotional. In fact, the majority of the article's sources (about 17) are clearly bylined and come from reputable news outlets. For instance, sources like Forbes India, GQ India, Outlook Business, and Indiatimes are reliable independent and well-established with editorial oversight and significant coverage. These sources aren't promotional and are quite usable in establishing this person's notability. Indian Express, Times Now, and Economic Times are also good sources. Additionally, being a judge on Shark Tank, one of the most popular global business television shows, is significant. This individual has received significant media attention for his appearance on the show and continues to get more coverage from independent media as shown by online searches.EmilyR34 (talk) 04:53, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  You clearly have ignored all concerns about WP:NEWSORGINDIA, the articles you have cited [15][16][17] (two of them with generic bylines)are nothing more than puff pieces and should be discounted per the guidance. - Ratnahastin (talk) 03:33, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm fully aware of WP:NEWSORGINDIA and everything I wrote above. Almost all media outlets, big or small, publish paid or sponsored content not just in India but worldwide. At the end of the day, media companies aren't nonprofits. Their main job is reporting, writing, editing, and presenting news to the public, but they mostly survive on advertising. You see a lot of display ads on their websites and advertisements in newspapers that's how they make money. That said major media outlets categorize paid stories separately. For example, The Times of India publishes them under "Spotlight," Hindustan Times under "Brand Media" or "Impact Feature," and Inc42 under "BrandLabs." These articles are usually puffery and easy to spot (not lecturing). You're right that they don't establish notability but that doesn't mean we should classify everything that isn't published under those specific categories in WP:NEWSORGINDIA just because they have generic bylines and only consider editorial content. Plenty of Wikipedia articles use sources without bylines. Major publications have strict editorial processes. Proper bylined articles go through rigorous review and fact-checking. I don't think all articles fall under WP:NEWSORGINDIA. Sources includingForbes India, GQ India, and Outlook Business, provide reliable, independent coverage with editorial oversight and are valid sources. As for the other articles, I wouldn't call them puffery. Puffery is exaggerated or misleading praise. EmilyR34 (talk) 05:23, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  "publish paid or sponsored content" Yes with adequate disclosure, but that doesn't happen in India, you entirely missed the point of the guidance. Indian media is notorious for publishing paid news/coverage without any disclosure, they publish press releases, churnalist puff and promotional pieces as news, read User:Ms Sarah Welch/sandbox/Paid news and private treaties too. "I wouldn't call them puffery" - Did you even read them? They all have promotional tone. - Ratnahastin (talk) 05:35, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Let's not get into this sandbox as Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Perennial sources is the right place to discuss this- I understood what you're trying to prove with your comments, so let's focus on that.

  "But that doesn’t happen in India," as you claim, then why did these publications introduce paid content categories and choose not to publish such content under "Staff Reporter" or an editor's name? How did we find out that publications label content as "Brand Media," "Brand Post," "Featured Content," "Partnered Content," "Spotlight," or "Brand Lab" to indicate paid material? And how were they reported and included in WP:NEWSORGINDIA? Isn't that a disclosure?

  Just because some publications or journalists engage in this practice (posting paid content without proper disclosure) does not mean we should assume the same for every outlet. I'm not claiming media companies are NGOs (please refer to my previous comment carefully). However, making broad generalizations about all publications is neither accurate nor fair.

  Notability should be evaluated solely based on the sources used- if independent sources provide sufficient coverage, the subject meets our notability criteria. If not, the content should be removed. The sources I presented above offer sufficient, independent, reliable, and significant coverage and meet WP:GNG. I will end it here. EmilyR34 (talk) 07:04, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  AfD is the proper place to judge sources which what we are doing here. "paid content categories and choose not to publish such content" - You are failing to understand that guidance is clearly about undisclosed paid editing in Indian media, these media houses publish press releases and puff pieces intermingled with regular news. - Ratnahastin (talk) 08:00, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, AfD is the right place to evaluate sources and that's what I pointed out in my comment above. However, it seems like instead of doing that we're lumping everything under WP:RSNOI. EmilyR34 (talk) 08:13, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep As per all above. Meets WP:GNG and WP:NBLP. Godovereverthing (talk) 07:03, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  See WP:NEWSORGINDIA. NXcrypto Message 03:31, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Forbes India, GQ India, Outlook Business, and Indiatimes also fall under WP:NEWSORGINDIA? EmilyR34 (talk) 07:56, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  All of them are indian sources , therefore if they have issues that are documented at the guidance, they fall under it. - Ratnahastin (talk) 07:58, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  No, that's not what I asked. I'm questioning whether Forbes India, GQ, Outlook Business, and Indiatimes, which I provided above, also have the same issues mentioned at WP:NEWSORGINDIA. EmilyR34 (talk) 08:20, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A source assessment done by someone familiar with our notability guidelines would be very helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 09:01, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep- meeting WP:GNG and WP:NBIO with significant coverage independent of the subject in Forbes India, GQ India, Outlook Business, and IndiaTimes found by EmiliyR34 and per DesiMoore's rationale.Frank Ken (talk) 12:43, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Seems notable and satisfies GNG, as there is sufficient significant and reliable coverage about the individual in sources that are independent and reliable.Chanel Dsouza (talk) 08:27, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The subject does not meet the notability criteria as the available sources fail to provide significant, independent coverage as required by WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Most articles are passing mentions, churnalism, and a mix of interviews and pre-written basic information, which do not establish notability. Many Keep voters have not thoroughly analyzed the sources, and a proper source assessment table is needed. Based on my analysis, only Forbes India gives something close to significant coverage. 2003:C8:A746:9200:1DF5:3EBC:FC95:D4A4 (talk) 14:10, 26 February 2025 (UTC) — 2003:C8:A746:9200:1DF5:3EBC:FC95:D4A4 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  Have you thoroughly analyzed all the sources before posting your comment here? This appears to be a desperate attempt to delete a notable article. Could you please explain how WP:GNG or WP:NBIO is not met and how sources like Forbes India, GQ India, Outlook Business, and Indiatimes are passing mentions. EmilyR34 (talk) 14:42, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No clear consensus is reached so far. Might need this relisting & source analysis.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Garuda ^Talk! 15:15, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Can any of the keep voters mention the three to five best sources? A complete source analysis would take a lot of time. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 16:11, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I find @EmilyR34's arguments more compelling. The sources they posted demonstrate sufficient coverage, and despite editors' concerns regarding WP:NEWSORGINDIA, the Forbes, GQ, etc sources don't seem promotional enough to warrant doubts of their independence. If an editor can prove that these sources are unreliable, then I will change my !vote, but until then I lean toward a keep. Madeleine (talk) 21:47, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]