Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/House of Hiranandani

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 delete. Davewild (talk) 20:35, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

House of Hiranandani

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

Article about a totally non-notable Indian construction/real-estate development company, with the only sources in the article not even being about the company but about the managing director and director of the company. And even those sources don't count since they're not WP:RS. When I first saw the "article" a while ago it was 100% promotional, and nothing but a sales leaflet. After cleaning out the promo and puffery very little remained, but today I noticed that they have started to add the unsourced promotional material and puffery back again, so I decided to nominate it for deletion. A search on Google returns no significant coverage at all in reliable sources, only one or two obvious press releases, and there's also the usual social media (Facebook, Twitter, Linkedin and so on) and some real-estate web sites trying to sell flats in Hiranandani projects. Thomas.W ^talk 09:44, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

After some contact with an IP they have started to add references, the problem is that none of the sources is about the company, i.e. providing significant coverage, only making passing mentions of the company name, if even that. Thomas.W ^talk 11:02, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:45, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:45, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:54, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. I agree regarding the article's current sources, which include a press release, an article where the company is not actually mentioned and other low-quality sources. This is probably the best out of the lot, but there is simply not enough to make a quality article. CorporateM (Talk) 16:56, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:44, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Promotional in tone and reads like "About us" from a company website. No notability as a company sufficient for an encyclopedia at present. Hithladaeus (talk) 18:45, 29 May 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.