Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sunkalp Energy

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. --MelanieN (talk) 22:41, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sunkalp Energy

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

Promotional and non notable. Every one of the references is a press release, sometimes a declared press release. . "Your story" is essentially a PR site, and the others are no better. " to spread awareness about the energy deficit in Uttar Pradesh and raise support for sustainable rural electrification" is typical promotionalism. DGG ( talk ) 18:41, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable sources just press releases, also promotional, per WP:PROMO. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:46, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Received award covered in bloomberg (http://www.bloomberg.com/bb/newsarchive/aizzQdEuK330.html), plus several other references where the organization in question is the primary subject of the text, and not mentioned in passing. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 20:50, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:14, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:14, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Week keep. Not very confident in citations other than YourStory. However seems little bit notable. Mr RD 10:47, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The mention in Bloomberg is very trivial. No other sources establish notability in this obviously paid for article. YourStory is a known publisher of Paid News and cannot be used as a reliable source. Winner 42 Talk to me! 17:45, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 18:25, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - two press releases, two articles and one deadlink. Does not appear to be enough reliable sources to indicate notability.--Rpclod (talk) 21:02, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
For now Delete The main source of articles reads like promotion as much or more than plain reporting or information. More from mainstream or, at least, disinterested sources would clinch the deal. This may be a case of "too soon," for an enterprise that may one day pass the WP:N test. Tapered (talk) 02:51, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now until better sourcing can occur, my searches (News, Books, browser, highbeam and thefreelibrary) found nothing aside from one press release. This is a good cause but unfortunately there isn't sufficient coverage yet. SwisterTwister talk 19:40, 22 May 2015 (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.