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The result was nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Pillechan (പിള്ളേച്ചനോട് പറ) 16:37, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Synergy Marine Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

There is no significant coverage to have a wikipedia article. Could not find any useful sources. Pillechan (പിള്ളേച്ചനോട് പറ) 16:29, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Based on the recent improvements made on the article, I wish to withdraw my nomination. Im with the opinion that the article now satisfies GNG criteria. Pillechan (പിള്ളേച്ചനോട് പറ) 16:26, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Pillechan (പിള്ളേച്ചനോട് പറ) 16:29, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Pillechan (പിള്ളേച്ചനോട് പറ) 16:29, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Soft delete (that is deletion should be treated as a WP:PROD deletion). Except for possibly the second citation from Times of India (which could be a press release, it's hard to tell), I don't see any significant coverage of this company. The statements made in the article are credible assertions of significance, which protect it from speedy deletion, but it seems that a company of this size and reach is likely notable should have more coverage. So I'd say, soft-delete it for now, allowing it to be restored later if further sources are found. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:37, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I added some references. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 17:33, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  That's a good effort, but those references aren't any good. All but two are trivial mentions, and of those two that aren't, one is about another company and the other one, which actually has decent coverage, has no byline at all, suggesting it's a press release. WP:CORPDEPTH is required. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:01, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I did a Google news search and found many many more news. I have added a few more sentences and citations. The company is notable.Webmaster862 (talk) 23:25, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @Webmaster862: see, that's the problem. Those sources have no bylines either, suggesting press releases or fed to the publication by the company, and the new one from hellenicshippingnews says at the bottom "Source: Synergy Group". Yes, there is coverage, but not independent coverage. And the book citation? Come on. That doesn't even mention the company, it just has the keywords "synergy" and "group". ~Anachronist (talk) 02:30, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• delete : As per nominator. Iamfarzan (talk) 08:23, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Changing my vote to Keep as per WP:HEY. Iamfarzan (talk) 00:17, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: I have removed advertisment like portions from the article and added some reliable sources. I think they are giving enough significant coverage, if not alone then combined together. Alphaonekannan (talk) 16:58, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

. Pillechan (പിള്ളേച്ചനോട് പറ) 16:26, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I had made the wish to withdraw this nomination at the top. Pillechan (പിള്ളേച്ചനോട് പറ) 16:26, 25 August 2021 (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.