From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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

Tata AIA Life (  | 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

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

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.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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

Tata AIA Life (  | 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

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

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.

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook