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 delete. Joyous! | Talk 00:37, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AuthBridge[edit]

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

primary/non-independent sources. Fails WP:CORP (promo activity) Widefox; talk 00:10, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

and Salt per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ajay Trehan. Widefox; talk 09:20, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 00:12, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 00:12, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Salt as I myself PRODed in May but it was boldly removed, literally none of this suggests better at all, and it's clear this only existed for advertising hence nothing else to say here. SwisterTwister talk 00:37, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - Subject of article is discussed in numerous news articles when performing a Google News search. However, this article comes off as an advertisement for the subject. I would consider keeping the article if an editor more familiar with the subject could expand or re-write the article. -- StarScream1007 ►Talk 03:11, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ and to answer the questions above by StarScream1007, all those sources are in fact advertising and we've established it before clearly as such, because the company is always paying for those announcements and notices, hence it's both company-motivated and paid for, there's literally nothing to ever suggest this is or is going to be currently significant, let alone substantial for notability. Deletion is quite simple with these, simply with the fact alone of blatant advertising. SwisterTwister talk 00:44, 25 November 2016 (UTC) struck double !vote. Anup [Talk] 02:55, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This company makes a genuine claim of notability but at this time in my opinion falls a bit short of WP:CORPDEPTH. Anup [Talk] 02:55, 25 November 2016 (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.