Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MobiKwik

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. Michig (talk) 07:06, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MobiKwik (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)

Nothing at all actually convincing given the sources and information are all simply about partnerships, PR awards, trivial coverage, interviews, funding and other financial activities, none of this amounts to actual convincing substance and notability; my own searches including at Indian news sources are find mirrors of this so there's nothing amply better. SwisterTwister talk 07:08, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:10, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:59, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:00, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – Meets WP:CORPDEPTH per a review of available sources. See below for bylined news articles written by staff writers that have been published in independent, reliable sources. Additional sources are also listed. No "find mirrors" here. See the Advanced search options at right for more options. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:13, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - while there are press releases, and puffery amongst the sources, significant coverage from reliable sources are available, and hence, notable. Regards—UY Scuti ^Talk 19:29, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -- squeaks by on GNG. I don't see this meeting COPRDEPTH, since the coverage is rather superficial -- about plans and aspirations mostly. But there's enough human interest coverage to meet GNG, I believe. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:26, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above. KGirlTrucker81 ^{talk what I'm been doing} 02:47, 17 August 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.