Deletion of PayU India

Comment: Didn't trouble myself with Googling the subject. Editors who want to save the article have flooded in much PR pieces here that make a good case of subject's ineligibility to reach the  standard. Whatsoever I saw, I found 8 out of 10 sources, PR, rest, . Subject at best meets  and make a borderline claim for . To end, if there has to be an article, it should be about PayU and there within PayU India can be covered
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:CORPDEPTH||WP:ROUTINE||WP:BASIC||WP:GNG)

Comment: I agree with K.e.coffman's analysis of the sources. The coverage is routine and PR (or PR-like, lacking independence), so the available sourcing doesn't satisfy . —&thinsp
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:CORPDEPTH)

Comment: Meets  per a review of |available sources
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:CORPDEPTH||WP:NEXIST)

Comment: Excellent analysis by {{u|K.e.coffman}}. This is far form satisfying . The massive number of sources are essentially a smokescreen but closer examination shows many of them are unreliable or essentially primary quotes. This seems to be a non-notable company which receives a bit of coverage through PR. The COI editing is also troubling and I would additionally advocate a delete per 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:CORPDEPTH||WP:NOTPROMO)