Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CaratLane


 * 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 no consensus. No more discussion seems to be forthcoming. Randykitty (talk) 08:04, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

CaratLane

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing General notability guideline and the more detailed Notability (companies) requirement. " It was deprodded by creator, User:Kiranbramakrishna, with no rationale (through he did leave a response on my talk (User_talk:Piotrus)). Unfortunately, I do not consider the sources sufficient. The Hindu short article is half-quoted from the company's CEO statement, and the other half-reads like a PR release - no surprise, as it paraphrases him. Business Standard article just has one para about the company - it simply notes that four companies, including this one, collected some amount of funds. Nothing special, regular coverage not sufficient to make the company encyclopedic. Half of the sources, anyway, focus on the same event ("Caratlane raises $31M in Series D round from Tiger Global") and seem to be rehashes of the same original press release. As for VCCircle, I don't really see how it qualifies as a reliable source; it seems to me more like a PR-outlet. As I discussed in my Signpost Op-Ed, this is a good example of Yellow-Pages like company spam. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 03:11, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. --  1Wiki8 Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR  (talk) 09:51, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. --  1Wiki8 Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR  (talk) 09:51, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:54, 7 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep Being promotional is a reason for cleanup, not deletion. Sources found: 1, 2, 3, 4. Please follow WP:BEFORE and actually look for sources first. AusLondonder (talk) 09:07, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Let's see. The Hindu article #1 is 90 words, 575 characters long, and seems like a reprint of a press release: "The Chennai-based startup founded in 2008, offers... The firm expects to end financial year 2015 with revenue." The second article is longer, but not better: "...will soon introduce patented ‘Magic Mirror’, which help a customer view...", most of the content is based on quotes: "Mithun Sacheti, Co-founder and CEO CaratLane, said...", "...said Calvin John, Vice-President-Offline marketing.", "Mr. Sacheti said that...". Sorry, those are a total fail in light of the requirement for independent coverage. Next you cite start-up news (ugh, I am growing to hate those) from Business Standard : "Carat lane raises $31 million". As I noted above, so what? This is business as usual, start-ups raise money from investors. It's not a source for establishing notability, just like a company doing an IPO, or its stocks going up or down, are trivial facts. Fourth is The Financial Express interview with one of the company directors. I guess it is acceptable, through I would like to ping User:DGG for another opinion here, I haven't thought about such interviews as sources much before and I'd be curious to hear his opinion. Do note, either way, that a single potentially reliable source is not sufficient for NCOMPANY. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 07:52, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Has acheived Wall Street Journal and Financial Times level coverage. AusLondonder (talk) 09:09, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Right, care to share the links for coverage of this company in those sources? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 07:52, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * If at all weak keep for now as although I haven't closely≥ looked at all the sources, I suppose it's minimally acceptable. SwisterTwister   talk  21:54, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I did and I am not impressed, see my post above. Cheers, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 07:52, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ☮ JAaron95  Talk  11:46, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Tentative delete waiting to see those WSJ and FT links. But experience seems to be that even newspapers like The Hindu or Times of India seem to think it appropriate to reprint press releases. Doesn't mean we have to copy their bad practices.  DGG ( talk ) 08:45, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. I can see about 7 pages about it in this Random House book before running into preview restrictions: ; part of a chapter devoted to it. There's also an article about Indian online jewelry e-commerce in The Economist that focuses on this one. Three paragraphs in the The Telegraph (Calcutta) . Put together with the existing sources, I think it meets GNG. Novickas (talk) 16:14, 15 September 2015 (UTC) P.S., as mentioned below, it was covered by Forbes India during March 2015 - four paragraphs.  Novickas (talk) 16:26, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

All the above data put together I believe there are enough reasons for them to have their page, as they’re not just another company – but one of the biggest online diamond retailers here. I believe that this is a case for cleanup rather than an outright deletion. Thanks for hearing me out (&#91;&#91;User:Kiranbramakrishna&#124;Kiranbramakrishna&#93;&#93;&#38;#124&#91;&#91;User talk:Kiranbramakrishna&#124;t&#93;&#93; )(&#91;&#91;User:Kiranbramakrishna&#124;COI&#93;&#93;) (talk) 04:02, 18 September 2015 (UTC) kiranbramakrishna  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Why Keep I see what you mean. I just believe that a company that has been covered by known newspapers such as Economic Times, Telegraph, Times of India, The Hindu, Financial Express etc (All leading newspaper dailies here) and many others is different from the rest. Maybe not enough? Then, to be recognised as the best e-commerce website from millions of sites in India – by an independent association, or to be recognised as one of the 20 hottest start-up by popular brands such as Dataquest, Sapient etc. Forbes India has included them a list of 10 sharply focused e-commerce players, without interpreting what that means – they’re being recognised is what I am saying. Then there are other bits – raising money from Tiger Global (it's not just an average round of fund-raising when they step in), their user base is growing.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 14:13, 22 September 2015 (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.