Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FundsIndia


 * 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:15, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

FundsIndia

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Indian Private company filled with Press releases/announcements or selfpublished resources, WP:MILL. Lack of significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content. GermanKity (talk) 05:00, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 05:00, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 05:00, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 05:00, 28 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep Every source has been checked out. Not one is a press release or self-published. All are independent reliable sources with named journalists (except the first) and nothing in the source to suggest it was self-published. Please list which sources are press releases or self-published, and provide evidence to support that opinion. -- Green  C  05:15, 28 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep Three sources that can be considered are
 * 1) - an independent article on founders exiting because of investors.
 * 2) This can be used but I am double minded on this. It has some independent comments but at the top it says Portfolio in place of journalist. When you click on portfolio, there seems to be a mix of stories that could be paid or not.
 * 3) According to reference table this is Times of India. Looks good enough to me.

Some more here &. I must also say that all funding related references are not useful and should be removed as much as possible (unless citing some information). I can see why nominator felt like this should be deleted. But WP:BEFORE is giving good reasons to save it and improve it probably. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 15:55, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep all references are not useful. So need to clean up. And the subject meet criteria. So keep. Trakinwiki (talk) 09:42, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment 1- Press Release/Anouncement fails WP:ORGIND, 2 - Press Release/Anouncement fails WP:ORGIND,   3 - Press Release/Anouncement fails WP:ORGIND. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GermanKity (talk • contribs)
 * medianama.com is a signed business journalism article containing original reporting/opinions in the voice of the author ("What's interesting..").
 * techcircle contains no evidence of a being press release, it is business journalism (signed author).
 * business-standard.com by appearances is business journalism not a press release.
 * -- Green  C  02:07, 3 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment Thhindu- Press Release/Anouncement fails WP:ORGIND.  Medianama- Press Release/Anouncement fails WP:ORGIND,  Techcircle.in - Press Release/Anouncement fails WP:ORGIND.   Business Standard - Press Release/Anouncement fails WP:ORGIND,   Livmint - It is a subscription couldn't check the entire article but it seems like just a passing mention.   Mydigitalfc.com - Press Release on non reliable resource.   TOI - Dead link,  dead link.   imgur - Nothing found on non reliable resource but creator mentioned TOI. Thehindu - it looks like paid, not independent of the subject.  Indiatimes - Un-Relevant article, nowhere mention about the subject.  Thhindu - Press Release/Announcement.    Economictimes - dead link GermanKity (talk) 02:15, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * So... repeatedly calling it a press release does not make it so. Read WP:ORGIND which says the source needs to have some sort of vested interest with the company. Where is the evidence these sources have a vested interest? You are ignoring evidence that runs counter to intuitions ("looks like"), while providing no evidence in support. I've added wayback links to the dead links. -- Green  C  04:54, 3 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep Sufficient and reliable sources exist. Webmaster862 (talk) 09:21, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep As there are significant reliable sources.Jackattack1597 (talk) 10:33, 5 July 2021 (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.