Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Greycaps 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) →TSU ^tp* 10:58, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Greycaps India

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

There is one source in the article, but apart from that I can't find anything constituting non-trivial coverage, thus fails WP:GNG. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 15:52, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think it looks fine now. As I had said, please give some time. Thanks for patience. VIVEK RAI : Friend? 16:41, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Although much of the coverage is passing mention just as an affiliation of the founder, who appears in the media often, it does appear there are also some independent sources that focus on the organization itself. I've added a few sources, to the point where it passes WP:GNG. The article definitely needs a lot of work with more extensive sourcing though, but it does appear those sources are out there. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 16:57, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and allow time for improvements. The article was first nominated for speedy deletion by the same nominator here 17 minutes after it was created. Then 58 minutes later, it was nominated for deletion here at AfD. (See the article's revision history.) That's just too soon; this discourages people from creating new articles and doesn't allow adequate time for article improvements to occur. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:48, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Northamerica1000.Shyamsunder (talk) 10:21, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Regarding Northamerica1000's comment - generally at AfD it is best to make arguments based upon notability of the subject rather than procedural. Begging for time generally is not as persuasive as finding actual sources and providing them to enhance the article. A fairly quick search turned up some, which I added to the article. I would encourage others to do the same instead of focusing on procedural complaints which do not discuss the content of the article. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 13:31, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Guide_to_deletion#Nomination. 'before nominating a recently created article, please consider that many good articles started their Wikilife in pretty bad shape. Unless it is obviously a hopeless case, consider sharing your reservations with the article creator, mentioning your concerns on the article's discussion page, and/or adding a "cleanup" template, instead of bringing the article to AfD.'Shyamsunder (talk) 09:36, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment : Is this AfD debate close to being finalized? VIVEK RAI : Friend? 08:46, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It will run for at least a week, just like almost every other debate. —Psychonaut (talk) 07:36, 25 June 2012 (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.