Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Freecharge

:{{la|Freecharge}} – (View AfDView log)

:({{Find sources|Freecharge}})

Speedy A7 template removed by a third-party. Company in India, no evidence of notability; main reference is the company's "Contact Us" webpage. Delete.  Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 14:46, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:44, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:44, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

• Speedy delete. Nothing here makes a case for minimal importance for this online recharge agency. (This apparently means that they add more time to cash and phone cards and the like.) - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:08, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
• Speedy delete under either A7 or G11 - I see no assertions of notability and it is written in a very promotional tone. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 20:25, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
• Delete. No evidence of notability found.--Michig (talk) 20:27, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. Ukrained (talk) 01:03, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
• Speedy delete, A7 & G11. I also see some socking in the history. Hairhorn (talk) 01:41, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
• Keep,Few external links have been added for notability of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brat tariq (talk • contribs) 08:50, 28 January 2012 (UTC) — Brat tariq (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Keep The article now has enough external links to prove its notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.4.16.125 (talk) 09:56, 28 January 2012 (UTC) — 27.4.16.125 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Keep Pass WP:GNG and WP:N. Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources --Dude7190 (talk) 11:47, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

::Notability requires sources, but sources are not sufficient for notability. Hairhorn (talk) 22:51, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

• Weak keep There actually are references, though there were mistakenly put in the external links section. But I have not yet checked to see how substantial they are. DGG ( talk ) 15:57, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

:They don't appear to me to be sufficient. The Hindu and Financial Express articles both appear to be regurgitating the same press release. The others don't look like reliable sources.--Michig (talk) 16:06, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

::And, generally speaking, announcements that a business has started up, opened a facility, or received financing do not count as significant coverage. Sources like this can establish that it isn't a hoax, but not much more. If the business is in fact operating, all of this can be presumed. Finding a subject notable means that it ought to be covered in an encyclopedia. Notability is not temporary; therefore, notable now means notable forever. These stories do not turn this business into something that meets that standard. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 06:32, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

• Delete - sources have been added, but they do not show significant coverage, IMHO, just existence. MikeWazowski (talk) 18:39, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
• Delete. We don't have significant, independent, multiple RS coverage. I also see from the above that two of the keep !votes are apparent SPAs, created immediately upon this AfD having been started.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:09, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

: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.