This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Business Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Organizations Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Individuals with a conflict of interest, particularly those representing the subject of the article, are strongly advised not to directly edit the article. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. You may request corrections or suggest content here on the Talk page for independent editors to review, or contact us if the issue is urgent.

The one independent source for this article is a >10 year old article that mentions it a single time. Are there more sources to establish notability? Brianhe (talk) 22:54, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thousands. I've done half the work by showing you where sources can be found, so it would be helpful, in the spirit of collaboration, if you could add references to some of them to the article. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:55, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

According to the unnecessarily snarky comment above, the topic has a lot of hits on Google Scholar and Google Books. Granted, a lot of these hits may be passing mentions on a quick first glance, but some of them seem to be covering the topic in more depth. I am not necessarily objecting to a deletion after an in-depth check, but the PROD rationale is too vague and doesn't take these mentioned sources into account. At the very least, this article should have an AfD discussion, so knowledgeable editors in India-related topics can comment on it - a PROD deletion seems too hasty in this situation. GermanJoe (talk) 14:17, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]