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 no consensus. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:50, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pristyn Care (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

This is an article for promotional purposes and doesn't meet the notability criteria for companies. Sources rely on press releases masquerading as legitimate sources. RPSkokie (talk) 10:55, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and India. RPSkokie (talk) 10:55, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Haryana. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:00, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete agree with nom, largely press releases used as sourcing. Nothing I can find either. Oaktree b (talk) 14:13, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or WP:TNT. The company clearly meets criteria for notability. The article itself maybe sus. DockMajestic (talk) 19:07, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Performed a simple edit to removed much of the flowery promotional language and added recent controversy. The company has sizeable operations, and a significant valuation with unicorn status, which makes it relevant in my opinion. Some of the sources may be promotional in nature, perhaps due to the different tone found in Indian media, but are reputable sources conveying largely relevant information. Amtoastintolerant (talk) 16:45, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 12:45, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I am unable to locate any references that meet NCORP criteria for establishing notability. I can provide an analysis is requested. In addition, "sizeable operations", "significant valuation", "unicorn status", and Amtoastintolerant's opinion do not form any part of any criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:46, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:12, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep after updates by Amtoastintolerant now demonstrating that the article meets WP:GNG; another case of "puffery by omission" i.e., neutral/negative news coverage that demonstrates notability having been previously omitted. The "controversy" articles are a bit thin but through them I did find what appears to be an in depth reported piece (paywalled) that is hard if not impossible to call a press release. Gnomingstuff (talk) 19:32, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Two points. First, this is a company so it needs to meet WP:NCORP as well as GNG. Second, there is no in-depth information about the company in that article, it is based on interviews with people associated with the company and while it paints a picture of unnecessary surgeries, it still doesn't meet WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:01, 21 September 2022 (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.