Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BharatPe (4th 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:16, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

BharatPe

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)

Sourcing is limited to PR and funding announcements, I don't find anything further in RS we could use to build an article. Oaktree b (talk) 23:26, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance and India. Oaktree b (talk) 23:26, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 01:58, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I concur. This fails WP:SIGCOV, so fails WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:07, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delhi-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:57, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Why is this different from the second nomination which was closed as keep following HighKing's !vote - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BharatPe (2nd nomination) — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 10:55, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per previous AfD where sources (research reports by independent analysts) that meet the criteria for establishing notability were located. Oaktree b, what is wrong with those sources? HighKing⁺⁺ 13:40, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I had only seen the new article when reviewing the financial category, was not aware of the prior nominations. Oaktree b (talk) 15:21, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:31, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was about to !vote to delete based on NPOV, as WP:ATD states If an article on a notable topic severely fails the verifiability or neutral point of view policies, it may be reduced to a stub, or completely deleted by consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion. But given that High King already found sources, I decided to improve the article with respect to it's current state instead. I removed unverifiable information from the article, added some verifiable information from the sources currently present, and generally cleaned up some NPOV issues. I think we can keep based on High King's sources. It would be good to add those into the article to improve it more, because at the moment, we have a really basic "company did money thing" stub right now with one borderline promotional quote that had previously been unattributed close paraphrasing. —siro χ o 03:12, 17 August 2023 (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.