Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Delhivery (3rd nomination)


 * 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.  Sandstein  09:29, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Delhivery
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Delete Previous AfD was closed due to a nom by sock. On review, I have reapplied for deletion. Zero indications of notability, a run-of-the-mill company. None of the provided references meet the criteria for establishing notability. None of the provided references are "intellectually independent" as all rely on information/quotations from company sources or interviews with founders, thereby failing WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND.  HighKing++ 11:45, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete-Concur...Interviews of the founder cannot be considered a stepping stone to notability — FR+ 12:06, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. Coverage in mainstream media seems wide enough, and in the case of the following articles does meet WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND: Mint, Economic Times, Economic Times, Economic Times, Times of India. The following articles also allude directly to the company: Fortune India and Mint. There is enough coverage in mainstream publications to meet WP:ORG notability.  Shobhit102 |  talk  18:19, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Also, the founder in this case does not hold notability on his own, and derives importance from having founded the company. And therefore, interviews in respected publications point to the importance of the company. Considering it is one of the largest players in a really large market segment, has attracted substantial funding from multiple large investors, and is moving towards an IPO, the startup is fairly significant.  Shobhit102 |  talk  18:58, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment, the guidelines are very clear on qualifying references to meet the criteria for establishing notability and not a single one of those references meet those criteria. Note that the criteria for allowable sources to support facts within an article are not as stringent and the references you've included are allowable for that purpose, but are not allowable for the purpose of establishing notability. The exercise of determining notability is not about the number of sources you can find in Google but about the content of those references which are required to provide intellectually independent in-depth information/opinion/analysis. For example:
 * This livemint reference relies on an anonymous source connected to the company and is therefore not intellectually independent (a key criteria) and arguably relying on an unofficial company announcement, failing WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND.
 * This Economic Times reference also relies on a business-as-usual company announcement on earnings and fails WP:ORGIND.
 * This Economic Times reference relies on a company announcement from one of their new investors in relation to a funding announcement and is therefore not intellectually independent and fails WP:ORGIND
 * This Economic Times reference might arguably be allowable except it provides no intellectually independent opinion/analysis. The first couple of paragraphs comments on an earnings report by repeating some of the information, then there's a quote from an analyst, the a comment that the company did not respond to a questionnaire, then an earlier quotation from a company source, then *perhaps* the next paragraph could be interpreted as intellectually independent opinion from the journalist or it could be the journalist repeating information previously published. The second part of the article is about the industry in general. In my opinion it doesn't have enough to meet WP:CORPDEPTH or WP:ORGIND but others may give the the benefit of the doubt.
 * This Times of India reference is based on an anonymous source and fails for the same reasons as the livemint reference
 * This Fortune India reference is standard churnalism providing a Company Profile. The format of these type articles are pretty well known - history, glossy posed pics, history of funding, description of business, quotations, etc, but it is really a marketing piece. Fails since it is not intellectually independent and relies exclusively on information provided by company sources. Fails WP:ORGIND.
 * This Live Mint reference is a simple company profile included in a list of other company profiles and fails WP:CORPDEPTH, specifically inclusion in lists of similar organizations, particularly in "best of", "top 100", "fastest growing" or similar lists.
 * So out of the references you've provided, none clearly meet the criteria for establishing notability based on WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND.  HighKing++ 10:46, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment, thanks a lot for helping me understand notability guidelines better. I really appreciate you taking out the time to do that. I understand your concerns regarding the sources above. I am not sure I understand why business-as-usual or investment decisions related coverage would not meet WP:ORGIND. There is significant coverage on both these aspects in multiple independent publications. And media coverage in general would seem to imply that the company is not a run-of-the-mill startup. But if it is decided that it is not so, I would not contest that further.  Shobhit102 |  talk  14:14, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment, no problem. I believe that the main reason is to meet the criteria of "independent" coverage. Independent does not mean that the publisher has no corporate connection with the company - it means that the coverage is intellectually independent. We are looking for intellectually independent opinion/analysis on the company, not regurgitated company-produced information. If you carefully read the sources and look for *anything* in the content where the journalist is voicing his/her own opinion or providing his/her own independent analysis, then you are closer to find a reference that meets the criteria for establishing notability. I note that you have kept your Keep !vote - if you've decided that the references don't meet the criteria, you can simply strike your !vote.  HighKing++ 09:54, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 13:10, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 13:10, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Further discussion is necessary on the substance of the sources here, and not just their existence. !Votes simply saying that "there are sources" carry will carry lower weight.
 * Keep There is just so many reliable sources, so this compoany is definitely notable. Some Economic times articles meet both WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. Emass100 (talk) 04:01, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * , your comment indicates that you are not familiar with the guidelines for establishing notability for corporations which goes beyond mere "reliable sources" and requires intellectually independent content. Nobody here has stated that the references, such as the Economic Times, are not "reliable sources". What has been stated is that the *content* of those articles are not *intellectually independent*. Take a look at WP:CORPDEPTH again - it says it very clearly. If you are still of a mind that the references meet WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND, post the link here and we'll take a look.  HighKing++ 09:54, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep As per previous voters -Mparrault (talk) 13:54, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment Just to point out the obvious, here at AfD it is not a simple count of !votes that determines the issue, but rather the qualify of arguments with reference to policies and guidelines. Since the previous !voters have relied exclusively on an argument that there is significant coverage in reliable sources, sadly, this does not help overcome the argument of non-notability since the standards for establishing notability go beyond establishing that a publication is a reliable source. If you believe that you have found a source that meets the guidelines for establishing notability, please post it here and we can take a look.  HighKing++ 15:05, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete: the sources offered here or in the article do not meet WP:NCORP / WP:CORPDEPTH, being passing mentions, routine funding news and / or WP:SPIP, such as interviews. As an aside,As per previous voters is not a valid argument in a deletion discussion. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:53, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete--Per HKing's analysis. ~ Winged Blades Godric 05:21, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (talk) 12:15, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep There are enough independent sources to satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. The argument against those sources appear to be simply based on unsubstantiated/unproven/unprovable claim that they not independent. Hzh (talk) 14:36, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment Your comment appears to be based on a misunderstanding of the criteria for establishing notability. The test is not for "independent sources", the test is for "intellectually independent sources", a significant difference. I've already explained above why the sources do not meet the criteria for establishing notability. Perhaps you could point to a specific reference and explain why the reasoning above is incorrect or unsubstantiated in some way, or perhaps provide an alternative viewpoint on why you believe the criteria for establishing notability has been met?  HighKing</b>++ 09:07, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I understand the WP:ORGIND criteria very well. All you are making is random accusation of supposed lack of independence that you could not substantiate, as there are huge number of sources covering a wide range of topics, just a few examples - . These are clearly the authors' own work, indications such as the authors trying to contact the company involved and received no reply, reference to independent sources, etc.. You should stop making random accusation against journalists. Given the number and variety of articles involved on the company, I'd suggest that WP:BEFORE was not properly conducted. Hzh (talk) 10:06, 10 June 2018 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.