Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shiprocket


 * 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. Spartaz Humbug! 22:19, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Shiprocket

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

run of the mill company. Its fundrasing was discussed as a news story, as all funding is given space in newspapers. nothing in depth in any RS. Fails SIGCOV. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 13:37, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions.  MT Train Talk 18:51, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  MT Train Talk 18:51, 18 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment: The subject is covered by economic times india, which is a reputable source here in India and world. As for the concern regarding funding articles, tech crunch and Entrepreneur not just mention funding but also discusses the Shiprockets functionality, and they both are notable. Mdvrtauseef (talk) 08:13, 20 May 2020 (UTC) — Mdvrtauseef (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * @User:Mdvrtauseefno source gives any indepth coverage. Run of the mill companies have usual PR coverage, that does not make them pass GNG. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 17:35, 20 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete: An article on a company, largely describing its start-up funding, appointments and being one of 15 recipients of a non-notable award. The factual accuracy appears questionable: the article says Shiprocket started in 2017, but their website says 2012; the relations of this product proposition with Kartrocket and BigFoot Retail Solutions are not covered. Aside from routine coverage of company announcements, there are advertorial supporting references (e.g. The Asian Age). The company has had coverage of another funding announcement this month but I am not seeing evidence of attained notability. AllyD (talk) 06:59, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete AllyD's analysis seems wholly acceptable: dubious sourcing combined with a dearth of reliable sourcing is a pretty-slam dunk NCORP fail. ——  Serial # 12:32, 26 May 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.