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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:14, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Planys Technologies[edit]

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

Clear advertising by clear advertising-only accounts and, regardless of the "first and only company", this is still advertising and the sources show it, thus there's nothing to suggest both non-advertising-motivated and actual convincing substance, and the article's current history speaks for itself. With WP:NOT policy, there's nothing to suggest we should tolerate this. SwisterTwister talk 19:00, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Apologies for violating the wikipedia norms. I have edited the article again and updated, please review and let me know of any other changes.To give an overview, Planys Technologies is an authorized company in Chennai TamilNadu, India and the content mentioned is authentic and true abiding by the company norms. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by RamanujaVijay (talk • contribs) 09:43, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Yes we are noted and I have mentioned the references as well. Maybe my referencing is wrong, please guide me as to what should be done further. There are a couple of article publications in which we were featured upon and I have added a few in the referencing column too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RamanujaVijay (talk • contribs) 07:24, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:55, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:55, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:06, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:47, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Move to draft Depending on how innovative their submersible technology is, they might conceivably be notable, but the references here do not show it. DGG ( talk ) 22:00, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Yes we are noted and I have mentioned the references as well. Maybe my referencing is wrong, please guide me as to what should be done further. There are a couple of article publications in which we were featured upon and I have added a few in the referencing column too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.242.232.134 (talk) 05:37, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Current sources and article text imply WP:TOOSOON status. Possibility of further sources that can support notability can be accommodated by future undeletion. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:00, 26 December 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.