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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:46, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tripoto[edit]

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

PRODed last month by K.e.coffman as an advertisement with nothing at all actually substantiating notability and substance and the sources themselves confirm this, the fact (1) these publications are notorious for accepting paid advertisments and (2) the sheer fact these said links contain nothing else but what the company would advertise itself which includes company activities, named clients, partners and investors, funding, financing and other triviality; literally none of the sources are independent and that's something to expect when it comes to these subjects. The user who contested the deletion has not stated how, why and where they will improve it and, considering literally everything is advertising, it's unlikely it can actually be fixed, simply take the sheer fact a massive number of different people solely focused with this one advertisement. SwisterTwister talk 21:59, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I found review article and a brief mention in an investment book, but have not found enough in-depth coverage in reliable sources to satisfy notability per WP:GNG. I don't have a good merge target, either, hence delete. --Mark viking (talk) 00:16, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- a promo page on an unremarkable business; I don't believe that sufficient sources exist that would enable building an encyclopedia entry, vs an entry in a "company catalog". K.e.coffman (talk) 00:42, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:42, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:42, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not yet. Company fails to satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH standard. Anup [Talk] 11:53, 11 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.