Deletion of ISPIRT

Comment: As the editor who removed the speedy I was aware versions of the article existed which had higher levels of content and references and  should not be used in anything but the most obvious of cases and with the history this was not obvious.  I had backed out a previous attempt to improve this article as I was concerned I might not have been neutral and maybe something else in my head too ... I recall I'd come across this article due to a possible link/relationship from another article.  I pulled back my previous effort and added a little to it.  The references in the current incarnation pass  and notability requirements and it can hardly be said to be a pure advertisement.  Yes it can be re-written a lot better, yes the infobox can be expanded ... we have Wikipedeans who love to do that.  I'm not sure a  or other options rather than nominate for deletion were properly explored before this nomination.  {{U|Coffeeluvr613}} comment is ''interesting''.  There may have been an implication that someone (possibly me?) could rewrite to demonstrate notabilty and may have been due to existance of the earlier version (that is meant to be considered at AfD).  Anyway to put a long story short I raised Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cheerio042/Archive suggesting Coffeeluvr613 for investigation as a sock puppet.  If I am not mistake investigation was handled by article nominator which was perhaps unfortunate and a very much  this was the case due to non-neutral involvement however I recognise {{U|Bbb23}} gets through a lot of work and may not have clocked linkage until too late in the process.  I'd suggestion people look at the article in its current state and not in its {{Oldid|ISPIRT|904974450|state at the point of AfD nomination}}.  Thankyou
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion (WP:SPEEDY||WP:GNG||WP:BEFORE||WP:AGF)

Comment: Sympathy with the nom but per  and {{u|Djm-leighpark}}, this has been improved.  A basic google search gives more  from good RS; for example,  in ''https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/small-biz/startups/how-ispirt-is-helping-indian-software-product-startups-get-exposure-to-international-markets/articleshow/47132324.cms The Economic Times'', and good coverage in ''http://www.forbesindia.com/article/special/is-ispirt-an-alternative-to-nasscom/34763/1 Forbes India'', and ''https://qz.com/india/1517823/nilekanis-ispirt-shadow-on-indias-rbi-digital-payments-panel/ Quartz India'', and ''https://www.thehindu.com/business/Industry/ispirt-to-jumpstart-mas-in-product-space/article5221967.ece The Hindu''.  It appears in many other tech-sites and indic-sites (I can't tell whether they are all RS and what grade), but, notwithstanding the agreed need for further work, it seems to at least meet a technical pass of GNG, and it is being reported on by solid RS
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:The Heymann Standard (WP:HEY||WP:GNG||WP:SIGCOV)

Comment: Besides the sources Britishfinance has mentioned (all valid, reliable and ), there is also The Ken https://the-ken.com/story/platform-ambitions-story-ispirt-lost-true-north/, Business Standard https://www.business-standard.com/article/companies/ispirt-sees-dissent-rising-after-sharad-sharma-s-lax-treatment-117053001530_1.html, Scroll.in https://scroll.in/article/838468/co-founder-of-uidai-associated-outfit-admits-to-anonymously-trolling-aadhaar-critics-on-twitter, Computerworld (a commentary even on whether it would succeed or not) https://www.computerworlduk.com/it-business/ispirt-why-indias-new-software-think-tank-will-struggle-3567206/. Meets  easily
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:SIGCOV||WP:NCORP)