Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bounce Scooter Share


 * 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 delete. Consensus is that the available sourcing doesn't satisfy WP:NCORP. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:35, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Bounce Scooter Share

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Only PR Based News. Non notable company. Lordofhunter (talk) 21:02, 25 December 2022 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:07, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and India. Lordofhunter (talk) 21:02, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:22, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Keep There are sufficient sources to establish that this company meets WP:NCORP. Jfire (talk) 23:16, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Techcrunch source shared is not even considered reliable here. In the ET we don't have the journalist's name, the whole news is based on the Financial report filed and the company future plan announcements. Lordofhunter (talk) 15:08, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Those are just examples. There are many, many sources available.
 * It's not a close call. This company very clearly has received significant coverage. Jfire (talk) 16:55, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Those were examples? I don't understand what you are trying to prove then. I will not interact if you share more such examples which even you know, are pointless. Please share your fav 2 sources not a list of junk. Don't share non-reliable sources like livemint. Entreprenue.com is not independent at all, totally driven by PR material. I have a similar comment on other sources. Kindly don't share funding, launches, announcements, or future plan-related news. Lordofhunter (talk) 07:21, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The New York Times doesn't even talk about the company in detail, it mentions Ola, Uber, Vogo and Bounce, all in relation to the industry in general. We require substantive information in the article about the thing you're trying to have a wikipedia article be about. Oaktree b (talk) 23:02, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
 * It's not a close call. This company very clearly has received significant coverage. Jfire (talk) 16:55, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Those were examples? I don't understand what you are trying to prove then. I will not interact if you share more such examples which even you know, are pointless. Please share your fav 2 sources not a list of junk. Don't share non-reliable sources like livemint. Entreprenue.com is not independent at all, totally driven by PR material. I have a similar comment on other sources. Kindly don't share funding, launches, announcements, or future plan-related news. Lordofhunter (talk) 07:21, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The New York Times doesn't even talk about the company in detail, it mentions Ola, Uber, Vogo and Bounce, all in relation to the industry in general. We require substantive information in the article about the thing you're trying to have a wikipedia article be about. Oaktree b (talk) 23:02, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
 * It's not a close call. This company very clearly has received significant coverage. Jfire (talk) 16:55, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Those were examples? I don't understand what you are trying to prove then. I will not interact if you share more such examples which even you know, are pointless. Please share your fav 2 sources not a list of junk. Don't share non-reliable sources like livemint. Entreprenue.com is not independent at all, totally driven by PR material. I have a similar comment on other sources. Kindly don't share funding, launches, announcements, or future plan-related news. Lordofhunter (talk) 07:21, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The New York Times doesn't even talk about the company in detail, it mentions Ola, Uber, Vogo and Bounce, all in relation to the industry in general. We require substantive information in the article about the thing you're trying to have a wikipedia article be about. Oaktree b (talk) 23:02, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
 * It's not a close call. This company very clearly has received significant coverage. Jfire (talk) 16:55, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Those were examples? I don't understand what you are trying to prove then. I will not interact if you share more such examples which even you know, are pointless. Please share your fav 2 sources not a list of junk. Don't share non-reliable sources like livemint. Entreprenue.com is not independent at all, totally driven by PR material. I have a similar comment on other sources. Kindly don't share funding, launches, announcements, or future plan-related news. Lordofhunter (talk) 07:21, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The New York Times doesn't even talk about the company in detail, it mentions Ola, Uber, Vogo and Bounce, all in relation to the industry in general. We require substantive information in the article about the thing you're trying to have a wikipedia article be about. Oaktree b (talk) 23:02, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
 * It's not a close call. This company very clearly has received significant coverage. Jfire (talk) 16:55, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Those were examples? I don't understand what you are trying to prove then. I will not interact if you share more such examples which even you know, are pointless. Please share your fav 2 sources not a list of junk. Don't share non-reliable sources like livemint. Entreprenue.com is not independent at all, totally driven by PR material. I have a similar comment on other sources. Kindly don't share funding, launches, announcements, or future plan-related news. Lordofhunter (talk) 07:21, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The New York Times doesn't even talk about the company in detail, it mentions Ola, Uber, Vogo and Bounce, all in relation to the industry in general. We require substantive information in the article about the thing you're trying to have a wikipedia article be about. Oaktree b (talk) 23:02, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The New York Times doesn't even talk about the company in detail, it mentions Ola, Uber, Vogo and Bounce, all in relation to the industry in general. We require substantive information in the article about the thing you're trying to have a wikipedia article be about. Oaktree b (talk) 23:02, 8 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete This is a company/organization therefore WP:NCORP guidelines apply. We need at least two deep or significant sources containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. References cannot rely only on information provided by the company - e.g. simply regurgitating quotations, press releases, announcements, interviews - these fail ORGIND. Here's a review of the references:
 * This in Money Control and this in VCCircle are funding announcements of the same funding round. They're all published using the same information and around the same date. They all rely entirely on the same information with no "Independent Content" as required by ORGIND. Here are five other articles all from the same time period, all regurgitating the same information. These references fail ORGIND
 * This in Hindu Business Line is about the parent company and doesn't mention the topic company, fails CORPDEPTH
 * This in Entrepreneur is a puff piece times to coincide with the Series D funding round mentioned above and relies entirely on interviews and information provided by the company/execs along with their investors. There is no "Independent Content" and fails ORGIND
 * This about the name change from Metro Bikes to Bounce is based on an annuncement at the time of their investment round in 2018, same as this article in VCCircle, no "Independent Content", fails ORGIND
 * Both this and this from Business Standard are both based on company announcements with insufficient "Independent Content", fails ORGIND
 * This in inc42 is based entirely on what a company spokesperson told the publisher, followed by a basic and oft-repeated company description (e.g. here and here), fails ORGIND
 * This in CarTechNewz barely mentions any details about the company, focused as it is on a product. The topic is the company, not the product, fails CORPDEPTH
 * None of these meet NCORP criteria for establishing notability. There's no doubt the company has an active PR and Marketing department, but volume of "coverage" doesn't translate into notability.  HighKing++ 19:22, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Relisting comment: Conflicting views on the sourcing, relisting for further discussion Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lord Roem ~ (talk) 22:46, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Delete Thinly-veiled PR piece; most sourcing is only mentioning the company in passing. Based on what I see, I don't even thing they're notable enough to have an article. It almost seems to be a minor business. Oaktree b (talk) 23:02, 8 January 2023 (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.