Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Smallcase


 * 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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  17:15, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Smallcase

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Fails general notability standards. The references are recycled PR material discussing virtually nothing more than the initial funding. QuiteUnusual (talk) 11:02, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions.  Kpg  jhp  jm  15:21, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  Kpg  jhp  jm  15:21, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep Nom reason is QuiteUnusal. GNG is not applicable. It is not a press releases or funding related. Check these independent sources in Economic Times, The Fortune , Business Today . All defining what it is and how it differs from existing investment products. They also discuss disadvantages. No press release or their recycles would have those.Aloolkaparatha (talk) 14:02, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * All trivial, none establish notability. QuiteUnusual (talk) 15:14, 12 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep Seems to pass WP:CORPDEPTH. I see nominator's point of view when they say it is recycled because a lot of sources are explaining what Smallcase is. But, there is plenty of independent commentary and analysis that helps it cross WP:CORPDEPTH. Folks are going to hate me for writing a long comment again but the intent is to just provide examples to support the opinions. See the CNBC article . It says One issue, however, is do the smallcase managers have the research bandwidth and prowess of a traditional money management set-up? Second, you will have to pay higher taxes. Because every time you sell a stock, you pay short-term capital gains tax, unlike in a mutual fund set up (you pay when you redeem your units). So, the overall tax burden in this structure would be much higher. Third, there is concentration risks of a particular strategy or theme or sector. And lastly, it is still a relatively new way of going about investing and it has only seen a bull market. Its true test will be when the cycle turns and things get ugly. This Hindu Business Line article analyses this in parallel to mutual funds, saying But do note that choosing a smallcase to fit your risk profile or return requirements is left to you and so is the timing of your entry or exit, which will decide your returns. In mutual funds, you can choose the right fund based on a track record, category and benchmark comparisons. When choosing smallcases, you may only have back-tested returns and risk indicators to go by. Research and understanding of companies and markets are a prerequisite for investing in smallcases. The Should You Consider section of this Economic Times one is also nice . In fact, the article concludes by saying For investors who are less involved, mutual funds should remain the preferred route to equities. These coverages are not funded related, have independent commentary and are in depth. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 01:48, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I guess that boils down to whether you believe that is coverage of the company, or actually coverage of an existing thing - the "smallcase" approach to investing. To me it looks like the equivalent of finding a minor unnotable start up social media platform and using it to anchor an article about the benefits of using social media rather than the company itself. Just my view. QuiteUnusual (talk) 08:31, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * You make a very solid point. What I understand is that this approach is unique to this company. At least in India I think. Hence, talking about the approach (which becomes a unique and sole product of this company in a manner of speaking) is talking about the company. But yes, for example, if it was another ecommerce selling books and coverage was about how selling books online is great or bad, it won't have any merit at all. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 02:20, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 08:07, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. That means first of all, articles that discuss the *company* - not their products or their executives and nothing that relies on company information or announcements or interviews, etc. None of the references in the article meet the criteria. I have been unable to find any references that meet NCORP criteria, topic fails WP:NCORP.  HighKing++ 15:01, 23 November 2021 (UTC)


 * @ HighKing, I wanted to check with you on what you think about WP:PRODUCTREV in WP:NCORP. I wanted to ask it before and then it slipped. This might be a good venue to discuss it. Also, WP:CORPDEPTH does mention product. It is saying Deep or significant coverage provides an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 16:51, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, the first sentence in NCORP - to help determine whether an organization (commercial or otherwise), or any of its products and services, is a valid subject for a separate Wikipedia article dedicated solely to that organization, product, or service. PRODUCTREV is *not* implying that an article on the product may be used to establish the notability of the company or vice versa. Also, I note that when the article was AfDed, the topic of the article was the company but changed the topic to be the platform after many !votes had already been made. It should be noted that the term "smallcase" also appears to have been adopted as an industry term to describe a "professionally managed basket of stock/EFTs" with this website listing a number of managers/advisors who provide "smallcase" investment advice and therefore one must look at each reference to ensure it is actually discussing the topic company or their platform. Most of the references explain the concept of a "smallcase" portfolio and point to brokerages and agencies with smallcase offerings, most provide a cookie cutter description of the company, but none meet CORPDEPTH *and* ORGIND. Regardless of whether the topic is the platform or the company, NCORP still requires topics to meet all of the criteria (see WP:SIRS). An analysis of the references shows the following:
 * This from moneycontrol is not about the topic company nor their platform but instead discusses smallcases as professionally managed baskets of stocks/Efts similar to other articles such as this one.
 * Hindu Business Online reference is about the company but fails ORGIND as it relies entirely on information provided by the company and provides no "Independent Content" such as the journalist's analysis/opinion/etc other than the lede which says it is "giving mutual funds a run for its money" but that isn't even close to the in-depth content required.
 * The entrepreneur reference is one of several such articles with the same date such as tjos from hrnxt.com and this from entrackt and relies entirely on an anouncement of funding by the company with no "Independent Content", fails WP:ORGIND.
 * This Hindu Businessline reference is an article to primarily explain the generic idea of a "smallcase" and while it makes a passing reference to the topic company and provides a short description of what they do and their partners, the article does not provide in-depth information nor provide "Independent Content" on the topic company. Reference fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND.
 * Forbes India article is a puff piece on the company and relies entirely on information provided by the company and the executives. It is marketing. There is no "Independent Content" and it fails WP:ORGIND
 * BusinessToday reference is a decent article which takes information from a variety of difference sources and people (including the topic company and their executives) to provide an explanation and description of smallcase products and how to get started. But I cannot see any in-depth information on the company which clearly contains "Independent Content".
 * This LiveMint reference is similarly decent and I could describe it the same way as the BusinessToday reference above - but equally it fails NCORP for the same reasons as above.
 * This second LiveMint reference relies entirely on information provided by the company and their CEO and does not contain any in-depth "Independent Content".
 * Economic Times reference is entirely based on a press release made by the company, fails ORGIND.
 * TechCrunch article is similarly based entirely on a funding announcement by the company, fails ORGIND.
 * This next Economic Times reference, like the Hindu Business reference, the Business Today reference and the first LiveMint reference, is primarily a primer on explaining what "smallcase"'s are, how they work and lists the ones that have performed well. But it is conspicuously *not* an in-depth article on the actual topic company nor their platform - fails CORPDEPTH
 * APN News reference is a Press release for an announcement by IIFL Securities, fails CORPDEPTH and ORGIND
 * I think there may be a case for an article on "managed stock baskets" or similar in which case there would be room to mention the topic company, but right now an article for this company is WP:TOOSOON as the "concept" is still being promoted and the only articles are either promotional or based on announcements (run-of-the-mill) or are trying to explain the more generic idea of a smallcase basket and how readers can get started.  HighKing++ 14:15, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment* The page is not having much clear content, and it can be taken in the right direction, that was my point. Nom questioned on GNG, so my logic is correct. It's better to extend it as a product, and it is notable too. Behind the moors (talk) 12:02, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * It can't be taken anywhere if it fails the criteria for establishing notability. Changing the article's topic from the company to the platform hasn't achieved that either. See above..  HighKing++ 13:18, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I mean, yes funding and all related are not helpful but I might not agree for notability because the analysis is also there. It's good to have multiple opinions, I shared mine but I liked your thinking pattern also. Behind the moors (talk) 15:37, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

<p class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   17:05, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep It's funny but smallcase is a product of a smallcase company. As a product it is passing WP:GNG based on the above sources. The content should be extended as a product, currently its too short and not much detailed. Knowing about such concepts will help readers. Rest, I got this fintech report about smallcase. . It is similar to bitcoin as a product, not a company. Behind the moors (talk) 17:04, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Merge it with Zerodha. A seperate article is not required. -Hatchens (talk) 09:53, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep A different investing technique with diverse sources talking about the company passing WP:NCORP. Nom is concerned about WP: GNG which is also passing. Few more sources like, , are enough to establish notability. Mtpos (talk) 04:34, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep Sources like this comparing smallcase with Mutual funds. For example, in this source Hence, the expense on an investment of ₹1 lakh in a smallcase is ₹250 as against ₹1,500 in an MF. There is also a table comparison in the source. Above sources and such are helping to pass notability.Juggyevil (talk) 18:06, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak delete per HighKing. Potentially notable but WP:NOTJUSTYET. You've got a long deletion log and a bunch of promotional versions in the article history. Even the current version can be considered to be promotional: Any investor can create its own model portfolio (smallcases) or invest in professionally managed smallcases. smallcases reduce risk of investment through diversification along with the flexibility to modify the portfolio according to the investor’s preference. If it is kept, the article could use some eyes or pending changes protection to keep a check on any further attempts to promote this product. M4DU7 (talk) 06:45, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep It is a trademarked term with this company, so anywhere media is taking about it they are not taking in general way or concept. You can check on this Indian Govt website for patent and trademark . So when media is talking about smallcase, they are talking about this particular subject. To me sources seems to pass WP:ORG. 1друг (talk) 08:35, 6 December 2021 (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.