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. Due to concerns about promotion and lack of notability, as well as concerns about the Times of India source being insufficient. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:37, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hitech Mobiles[edit]

Hitech Mobiles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Delete. Fails WP:ORG. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 12:09, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:GNG, sources are reheated "we are very excited" press releases and a WP:NEWSPRIMARY interview. --McGeddon (talk) 12:18, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:16, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:16, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:16, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Fix and Keep Could someone convince me that the Times of India is a PR mirror? The articles seem to be factual and not particularly focused on the words of Hitech's PR team. A large electronics firm based in India is exceptional, and I could believe it's notable enough to warrant this kind of coverage without any collusion. I agree that the wording of the WP article is promotional and editorial, but the company itself does appear to be notable (assuming they're not lying about their size). Jergling (talk) 16:14, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and I can answer the Keep vote's question; there has been AfD consensus Indian media is notorious for accepting payment with exchange of articles, especially if it focuses heavily with puffed information about the company including only what the company would want to list about itself, including specifics about services and how to contact them. Examining all of this here finds exactly that, PR, considering the articles themselves simply talk about what essentially a business listing would list; things only of interest to clients and investors. Basically this could've even been deleted with PROD since there's no actual substance.— Preceding unsigned comment added by SwisterTwister (talk • contribs) 06:42, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Times of India/gadgetsnow article also has no byline (just "TNN", Times News Network), and outside of quoting the managing director and saying that "the company expects" something, it doesn't actually say much of note about Hitech Mobiles. --McGeddon (talk) 16:23, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as WP:PROMO; with sections, such as Products and Endorsements, this is strictly a vanity page. Sources are insufficient to meet WP:CORPDEPTH as discussed above. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:06, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: There are some coverage, but they all seem to be either ROUTINE]] or PR. Not seeing anything substantial that would help the company meets the WP:CORPDEPTH criteria. Plus article reads like an ADVERTISEMENT. Anup [Talk] 02:29, 22 September 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.