Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FactorDaily


 * 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. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 04:56, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

FactorDaily

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Non notable digital media publication that lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources. A before shows hits in non notable sources such as this, in primary sources & user generated sources all of which we don’t consider reliable. Celestina007 (talk) 12:15, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 12:15, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 12:15, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 12:15, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 12:15, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 12:15, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 12:15, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep: The media company has been referenced in over 25 Wikipedia pages, multiple times. Reference sources listed on the page are notable with Wikipedia pages of their own like TechCrunch and the Hindu newspaper. The publication has covered a variety of topics including bringing out the 'Me Too' movement in the Indian technology space. Articles published on the site are often reference in notable international technology news sites like Techmeme that are highly reliable. Logicalriver (talk) 17:24, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment — The editor above is the article creator. Furthermore please do provide us with at least 3 reliable sources that show discusses the organization/media company have been discussed with in-depth in reliable sources independent of them. Celestina007 (talk) 21:10, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment - Yes, I am the creator of the article and I'm new to Wikipedia. You being a senior editor know things better than I do, but I don't think that just being a geography-focused or smaller company discredits a media company from having a Wiki page and hope your decision is not biased because of this factor. As far as your request goes, here are articles and FactorDaily's coverage referenced and discussed in-depth by notable independent sources - Fortune,Reuters, PC-Mag, Quartz, CNBC TV18, WIRED, GQ India and VCCircle.Logicalriver (talk) 18:38, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Draftify The article contains a lot of peacockery and promo blurb, and many statements are unsupported. If one were to weed out the fluff and add RS citations, this perhaps could be salvaged, but I think the onus is on the creating editor to do that, hence why I'd move this to draft space rather than keep and leave it for others to do the work. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:31, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep: Per reliable sources indicated by Logicalriver. Article is good enough to pass WP:GNG. ASTIG😎  (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 16:00, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , I fail to see any sources indicated by ? ─ The Aafī (talk) 19:28, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Already corrected. ASTIG😎  (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 00:15, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete The references are very poor, startup style PR and run-of-the-mill business news that don't prove the organisation is notable. The first references to [] fails WP:ORGIND. The second one is a passing mention and fails WP:SIRS. The third ref is also very poor and doesn't pass WP:V/WP:SIRS. The references provided above, are news stories that perhaps were originated by the news outlet, but don't verify it as being notable, in own right. They are merely stories that originated there and were picked up by other news organisation. Anybody could have originated them. All that has been presented so far, is indicative of a very young new outlet, that hasinsufficient coverage to satisfy WP:NCORP or WP:SIRS. If there was detailed reference available that passed WP:NCORP/WP:SIRS, they would have been present, but they're not. It is non-notable at the current time.    scope_creep Talk  17:34, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pamzeis (talk) 08:51, 7 November 2020 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete The applicable guideline is WP:NCORP and while references should be reliable sources, meeting only that part of the criteria is not enough to establish notability. References must also meet additional criteria including in-depth coverage and Independent Content (facts/opinion/etc generated by the journalist). Not a single reference I can find or that is referenced in the article meets the criteria. Topic fails NCORP/GNG.  HighKing++ 20:04, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 21:45, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep: Referenced in academic articles - I am listing just 3 of the first 4 I checked, with about 100 hits on Google Scholar: Hyper-localizing e-Commerce Strategy: An Emerging Market Perspective, International Journal on Customer Relations, Observer Research Foundation (ORF).--Concertmusic (talk) 16:02, 25 November 2020 (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.