Mrs. Bectors Food: Charlie ( talk ) 03:11, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and India .  Charlie ( talk ) 03:11, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Punjab-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 03:35, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 03:36, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 03:37, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 03:37, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment May I ask whether you did WP:BEFORE searches on this article subject before bringing an AfD?  A quick search on Google Scholar for (Bector AND Cremica) yielded a number of results with lengthy coverage, e.g., [46] , [47] , [48] .  Did you see these and reject them for some reason?   Should the rule that the existence of sources determines notability, regardless of the current state of the article apply to this nomination?  Oblivy ( talk ) 05:13, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Oblivy The journals you provided as sources aren't listed in Scopus, EBSCO, HeinOnline, or any other bibliographic index listed with Wikipedia Library .  If these academic citations are accepted, they would be more fitting for enhancing Rajni Bector 's page than this company's page.  However, you are invited to do the needful so that it passes WP:HEY .  Charlie ( talk ) 18:15, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I appreciate your response, but you didn't really address my question.  It's expected  editors will do searching for sources before bringing an AfD for non-notability.Were you aware of the existence of sources describing the article subject and rejected them?   I just chose the first few substantial non-paywalled sources I could find, there are others - did you see those?  Note that per WP:NEXISTS the existence of sources is most relevant, not the state of the sourcing in the article itself.  Oblivy ( talk ) 22:33, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The academic sources you mentioned mainly talk about Rajni Bector , not so much about the company.  Kindly take a look at what those sources say.  Look...  I acknowledge the importance of having relevant sources, but it's crucial to examine the content and context as well.  If we take your perspective into account, I am also open to the idea of merging this company page with Rajni Bector's.  But, for now, be bold and make changes to the page so that it passes WP:HEY .  Charlie ( talk ) 06:42, 14 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep -- per Oblivy .  I also found citations from the following: Business Standard , Tribune India , etc.  The article is in need of expansion, but clear notability  has been demonstrated.  KangarooGymnast ( talk ) 12:15, 13 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Relisting.  User:Oblivy , are you arguing to Keep this article or do you advocate some other resolution?  You've done some research so I assume it brought you to some conclusion.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  02:16, 20 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep It's a multinational, woman-founded company that is listed on the Indian stock exchanges.  It's a well known brand-name in India.   It has relationships with most major fast food chains.  It made national news when it got raided by tax authorities....  I've added cites which provide significant coverage.  A lot of press came out around the time of its IPO and those articles provide enough factual content to support all or most of the article (I noted the founding date is all over the map, probably 1978, but also 1977 and 1985, so I left it alone).   There is a lot more coverage of this company, although admittedly quite a bit of it falls into earned media rather than independent gumshoe journalism.  I don't think that's disqualifying, but I know some people do.  My point above stands - I don't understand the rationale for bringing this to AfD, and certainly don't agree with the suggestion a nominator can fail to show that WP:BEFORE was met and then say, hey (pun intended), you can edit the article to try to save it.  This should have been an obvious keep but someone had to do the work.  Oblivy ( talk ) 03:25, 20 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 01:18, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep WP:CORP also per comments by Oblivy .  — Maile ( talk ) 14:18, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , I don't see how it does not meet CORP, and the peacock tag can be removed.  I don't see any peacock terms in the article.  Rajni Bector could be a possible merge candidate into the company page (but also a candidate for expansion).  Geschichte ( talk ) 18:00, 27 December 2023 (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.

Discussion outcome: keep