Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SRM transports

{{AFD help}}

:{{la|SRM transports}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/SRM_transports Stats])

:({{Find sources AFD|SRM transports}})

Fails WP:NCORP, only one of the references is about the subject. The reference added since the PROD is just a trade listing. Contested PROD. Cabayi (talk) 07:44, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 07:44, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 07:44, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 07:44, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

• Delete searches show up very little. Author likely has a WP:COI (not a reason to delete, but still). Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 16:17, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
• Keep: I could find 2 articles that suggest it passes WP:GNG and WP:ORGCRIT: the [https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/economy/logistics/SRM-Transports-joins-hands-with-India-Post/article20846469.ece first] and [https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/economy/logistics/SRM-Transports-to-enhance-fleet-strength-four-fold/article20423680.ece second] articles from The Hindu Business Line. I also found [http://www.motorindiaonline.in/buses/srm-transports-winning-all-along-with-customer-focus-strategy/ this Motor India article], but it mostly consists of an interview (and therefore is not a secondary source). I couldn't find anything else though, so it's a pretty weak case. — MarkH21 (talk) 11:01, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
• :The Hindu Business Line goes out of its way to distance itself from the second article and undercuts its independence, "according to a company press release." -- Cabayi (talk) 11:19, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
• ::I interpreted that to mean only the last paragraph is based on the press release - not that the entire article is echoing a press release. — MarkH21 (talk) 11:27, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
• :::Of the two possible press releases, "SRM Transports has set a target of quadrupling its fleet..." or SRM releases a list of its vehicles, I think the former (& THBL's whole article being a rehash of the press release) is the more likely. -- Cabayi (talk) 12:34, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

• Keep. Passes WP:GNG and WP:ORGCRIT. Additionally, the company made international news as part of a tax evasion scandal in 2013. I added content and reference to the article on this topic.4meter4 (talk) 16:49, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

::The ref you added without providing a url only mentions the company in passing in the 17th paragraph of 19 as "The other major businesses are SRM Transport (Rs 75 crore) and SRM Hotels (Rs 30 crore)." That's not significant coverage. (I've added the url.) Cabayi (talk) 18:22, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

:::I disagree with your assessment. The article is focused on the SRM Group of which SRM transports is specifically mentioned as a significant part (ie not one of the other smaller companies not mentioned in the article). The article is about the actions taken againt the companies in the SRM Group, of which SRM transports is one of three central figures among a collection of companies. As for a url, I used an internal database at my university library which requires an access code. I had no url to give. If its online somewhere else add one yourself. 4meter4 (talk) 20:14, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

::::That's an argument for SRM Group, but not for SRM transports. And, as noted in my previous comment, "I've added the url." Cabayi (talk) 09:07, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

{{clear}}

: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.