Deletion of PTron (2nd nomination)

Comment: company lacks in-depth sources to pass , balant use of platform
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: The analysis provided by {{u|Harshil169}} incorrectly omits to check for "Independent Content" and incorrectly applies the criteria for "Significant". Checking for "Independent" does not simply mean checking that the publisher is "independent" from (i.e. has no corporate links with") the company but that the *content* is also Independent.  defines this as follows: '' Independent content, in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject.''  So when you see that Harshill69 has indicated that (for example) https://www.news18.com/news/tech/mobile-accessories-brand-ptron-records-rs-50-cr-in-sales-1541019.html this news18.com reference as meeting the criteria for "independent" and yet the article is based on an announcement from the company and largely consisting of a quotation from the CEO of the parent company, you know the analysis is bad. So, here is the analysis redone to correctly account for Independent Content, |in-depth coverage (of the company) and |"significant" coverage (which also states the article must be "Independent of the subject" (i.e. Independent Content
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ORGIND||WP:CORPDEPTH||WP:SIGCOV)

Comment: the article passes  making an SNG - NCORP  argument moot. Actual policies   
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:CORPDEPTH||WP:PRESERVE||WP:ATD||WP:NOTPAPER)