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 keep‎. In light of the new sources found. Arguments to delete the article have not addressed the new sources, which seem to counter initial concerns that there was a lack of notability. Malinaccier (talk) 13:43, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tata AIA Life (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)

Insufficient number of references for the significance of the article Welcome to Pandora (talk) 11:41, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Welcome to Pandora a lack of references is not reason for deletion. Please have a look at Wikipedia:Guide to deletion.

I would suggest a Redirect to Tata Group which holds a majority stake in the company, as I couldn't find any WP:SIGCOV in secondary sources. I did, however, found a lot of routine coverage: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] Broc (talk) 12:17, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. Owen× ☎ 13:11, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Tata_Group#Affiliated_companies. Page fails WP:SIGCOV in secondary independent sources and WP:NCORP. RangersRus (talk) 13:18, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• I would suggest to Keep the article as a STUB until its contents are expanded. Redirecting this article would NOT serve the purpose. Moreover, if Tata AIA Life is nominated for deletion, then TATA AIG should also be nominated for deletion since both are joint ventures between Tata Sons & foreign financial companies. Indian English Literature (talk) 03:28, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Indian English Literature we are discussing deletion of this page, whose notability should be evaluated on its own merits and not based on other content present or not present on Wikipedia. WP:WHATABOUTX should be avoided as argument. Broc (talk) 06:46, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance and Maharashtra. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:43, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:06, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. There are enough in-depth news articles on a recent ad campaign to justify an article (though I suggest that it be merely a section, not a whole article),[8][9][10][11][12][13], and that's before we get to the 400+ hits on the company's name in Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library. Many of those include routine coverage, but not all of them are restricted to only routine coverage. I suggest Fortune, as it's a compare-and-contrast (classic secondary source), Economic Times (detailed evaluation of company's risks and opportunities), and maybe E4M (tying their political activity to their overall branding). WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:42, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:46, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WhatamIdoing. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 13:23, 20 June 2024 (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.