Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sportskeeda


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Despite a numeric majority, keep !votes fail to establish a case for the article meeting WP:NCORP, and are based on either anecdotal claims of importance, a misapplication of WP:USEBYOTHERS reasoning to suggest notability rather than reliability, or else rely on sources that, upon scrutiny, do not meet WP:ORGCRITE. Various comments on either side of the discussion attesting to its prominence in internet coverage suggest that the this may be a case of WP:TOOSOON, with a possibility that notability-establishing coverage will be written in the future if it continues to operate at its current level. Some side discussion in the AfD also suggested that its parent company, Nazara Technologies, may already be notable. If such an article is created, it would likely be appropriate and WP:DUE to include coverage of Sportskeeda there and turn this title into a redirect. signed,Rosguill talk 10:22, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Sportskeeda

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)


 * Fails GNG and NCORP as none of the sources meets the requirements of "subject needs to have significant coverage by independent, reliable sources where by the source talks about the the subject in depth and in length and not only passing mentioned.


 * 1. livemint info from interview which makes the source not independent
 * 2. exchange4media interview peice from the CEO of the company which makes the source unreliable.
 * 3.gadgets360 - Just a sentence mentioned of the company.
 * 4. the print - a press release article
 * 5.timesofindia - advertising content of the company
 * 6. the indus bussinessline - could not able to read the whole article, but the source covers only 5 areas - company, market, options, portfolio and economy and have member subscription - does not look reliable source to me.


 *  Cassiopeia  talk  00:49, 31 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions.  Cassiopeia   talk  00:49, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. I don't think, this article should be deleted. Sportskeeda is a renowned sports media organization with 88Mn+ MAU. They are part of the listed company Nazara technologies. Also, they have recently acquired a US based firm, Pro Football Network. 27.4.76.33 (talk) 04:58, 5 June 2023 (UTC) — 27.4.76.33 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Websites,  and Karnataka.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:20, 31 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep Sportskeeda is one of the topmost sports and e-sports websites (Top 3 in India, currently #12 in the US), and clocked 800 million users in trailing 12 months (source: Similarweb).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.151.104.66 (talk) 13:44, 5 June 2023 (UTC)  — 180.151.104.66 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed,Rosguill talk 03:36, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete Could not find anything else on Google. — V ORTEX  3427 (Talk!) 12:30, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete. I did not manage to locate any significant coverage of the subject. Coverage in Hindi aren't any better, with only primary sources, trivial mentions and routine coverage (acquisition, company evaluations, etc). Tutwakhamoe (talk) 22:31, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I did a more in depth search and found coverage by Hindustan Times, LiveMint, The Economic Times and Business Standard. Lethweimaster (talk) 11:13, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * News about acquisitions are counted as WP:ROUTINE. Those don't really help establishing notability. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 06:43, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep Added coverage by Hindustan Times, LiveMint, The Economic Times and according to the Business Standard, Sportskeeda is Indias largest all-sports website. I believe it now meets WP:GNG. Removed theprint press release and cleaned up. I believe the article is very interesting and pertinent for anyone who wishes to learn more about this rapidly expanding entity.Lethweimaster (talk) 11:12, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep Per Lethweimaster.DarkHorseMayhem (talk) 13:57, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep This is a global organization with India and US being their Major Markets. They bought majority stake in Pro Football network - a leading Pro football Media company. This is owned by Nazara technologies which is a publicly traded firm.
 * https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/tech/technology/nazaras-sportskeeda-buys-nfl-focused-platform-pro-football-network-for-1-8-million/articleshow/98915686.cms?from=mdr Ppcexpertise95 (talk) 16:21, 2 June 2023 (UTC) — Ppcexpertise95 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep - Entire article was incorrect as per guidelines, so I have re-written the content as per NPOV and fixed both content and references. Request to revisit the article. @ If you are not able to view paid article content then use Chrome Browser, copy-paste the URL & then at the beginning write "cache:" You will be able to view the cached version of content through Google Server. For example -> "cache:https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/economy/A-social-way-of-covering-sports/article20505160.ece" VKG1985 (Talk &#124; E-Mail &#124; Contrib) 18:55, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep, judging based on the coverage it has received by Indian newspapers. I wouldn't consider the acquisition of Sportskeeda routine when Sportskeeda received coverage of its acquisition of an American company. SWinxy (talk) 03:57, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "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. Here, the references are simply regurgitating company announcements and have no "Independent Content" in the form of independent analysis/fact checking/opinion/etc. For example, the reference by  above from TheHinduBusinessLine is entirely based on an interview, therefore no "Independent Content" and fails ORGIND. Acquisition coverage relies on Press Releases and similar announcements, also failing ORGIND. I'd invite any of the Keep !voters above to indicate the particular paragraphs in whatever sources meet CORPDEPTH/ORGIND, I've examined the sources listed to date and I am unable to see any content that meets the criteria for establishing notability.  HighKing++ 17:45, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Delete as per the nominator Cassiopeia and HighKing. Also, the IP: 27.4.76.33, IP: 180.151.104.66, and User:Ppcexpertise95(contribs)have made few or no other edits outside this topic. They voted to keep the article but failed to establish any notable significant coverages. So the article should be deleted because none of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability.Kashem overflow (talk) 07:04, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep renowned sports media.--Tommy Lee J. (talk) 22:48, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Since the next vote seems to leverage on my brief Keep "argument", I'll add that Sportskeeda has been cited by dozens of national and international newspapers and websites. For example, as put forward by @Lethweimaster above, it has been covered by Hindustan Times, LiveMint, The Economic Times and the Business Standard, the latter claiming it is the "largest Indian all-sports website". So it meets WP:GNG anyway. When I look for sports-related stuff online (and I'm not Indian nor living in India), especially in the Google news section, Sportskeeda often pops up, which I believe reflects its prominence among sports news websites. Tommy Lee J. (talk) 09:47, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
 * No, our guidelines require a lot more than being "cited" or "coverage", this isn't an exercise in volume. As per NCORP we require specific types of references - ones that provide in-depth "Independend Content" about the company as per SIRS/ORGIND/CORPDEPTH. Which references in particular do you believe meets the criteria? Please point to specific paragraphs in specific sources.  HighKing++ 15:39, 14 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete - Many keep arguments lack merit; how popular a website is is irrelevant to notability. It also is not renowned, it has long been considered an unreliable source by WP:PW/RS, but that is also irrelevant.  Although some reliable sources have mentioned it in passing, I don't think we've achieved WP:SIGCOV.  However, I think its parent company, Nazara Technologies, has a better chance at meeting notability guidelines, should someone want to create that article.LM2000 (talk) 03:32, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Y'know I never considered that idea. It might work. SWinxy (talk) 04:22, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Relisting comment: Need more discussion on the article in its current state having had some cleanup, ideally from established editors. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  16:21, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep The subject passes WP:GNG and WP:NCORP, the subject is covered organically by the Reliable news website. As i checked it was on the correct guidelines before but it was then edited by some users and made it. It acquired an American company which gave the subject a good coverage.--Monhiroe (talk) 08:35, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
 * <p class="xfd_relist" style="margin:0 0 0 -1em;border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 2em;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Delete: References are almost purely non-independent. Lacks SIGCOV. UtherSRG (talk) 16:52, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete. I'm surprised to be coming down on the side of delete, as I've seen this website rank highly on many google searches in the past and assumed it must be significant. However, having examined the sources, I concur with HighKing's analysis. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 21:54, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep highly notable, highly trafficked site. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:44, 19 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Sportskeeda is important for the gaming community and is renowned in other aspects as well. Sportskeeda is ranked no 1 when it comes to information about Genshin Impact. Not only does their website receive millions of view for Genshin Impact content, their SEO enables them to be at the top of the list on google when you search up Genshin Impact team guides. 2603:8000:3040:B:817C:2D85:A60:8B8 (talk) 05:12, 22 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete. I do not fully agree with HighKing's analysis, but deletion is still correct. The subject has a twofold nature: it does not have to pass strict criteria of WP:CORPDEPTH, since it is eligible for WP:NWEB as a website. If a website is a run by a company (very normal) and the company as a company doesn't pass the NCORP standard (very normal), it doesn't mean that we can't have an article about the website... and also talk about the business operations behind the website. As long as this can be understood to be an article about the website, and it can, NCORP can be entirely evaded as a redundant set of restrictions (relative to the baseline GNG). The question then is whether GNG or NWEB are met.GNG or NWEB are not met. The sources are mostly routine coverage, and the rest are not sufficiently in-depth and don't seem particularly independent either. Wikipedia articles should not exist only to describe the nature, appearance or services a website offers, but should also describe the site in an encyclopedic manner, offering detail on a website's achievements, impact or historical significance ... Looking at the current article and the available sources when determining if the article does, or if it could, describe the site in the aforementioned "encyclopedic manner"—it's apparent that it does not, and due to a lack of detailed information in the sources about the website's achievements, impact, or historical significance, it probably could not. When pondering WP:WEBCRIT, i.e. whether the content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself, it's important to remember that only the sources about the website as the website count, and one should see that most of the coverage is routine news about the company, and not about the "content itself"; coverage of the content itself is fairly shallow.—Alalch E. 12:15, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is a very big sports webpage. The article is crappy but that doesn't mean the subject is non-notable. Desertarun (talk) 15:01, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
 * It would've mattered that Sportskeeda is a very big sports webpage if Wikipedia was an internet guide, but as things stands, Wikipedia is not an internet guide, so this fact does not matter. The only thing that matters is notability, not size or importance. Notability.—Alalch E. 16:32, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I wrote two short sentences. Read the second one again. Desertarun (talk) 17:21, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't need to, I read it just fine the first time.—Alalch E. 17:36, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I'll help you pin this one down. What part of my words "The article is crappy but that doesn't mean the subject is non-notable" - doesn't refer to notability? Desertarun (talk) 20:21, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks but that doesn't help. You only asserted that the article is crappy, and that, broadly speaking, an article that is crappy may or may not be about a notable subject. You didn't say that this is a notable subject and why. (See red herring.)—Alalch E. 20:49, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry you can't understand. No doubt the closing admin will read your Delete vote as I did - an editor engaging in TLDR so they can try to understand policy. Desertarun (talk) 20:59, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not stopping you from making a substantive assertion that the subject is notable (as opposed to saying that the webpage is "very big", and calling the article crappy).—Alalch E. 21:06, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
 * The article has 20 refs. How many more do you want? Another 20, 50 or 100? We're already way over GNG. Desertarun (talk) 21:11, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:THREE.—Alalch E. 21:14, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
 * That's an essay. At the time this AFD started there were 8 refs, now there are 20. Desertarun (talk) 21:21, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Okay, I can live with two (multiple sources are generally expected). That is: two reliable sources independent of the subject that contain significant coverage (not just any sources).—Alalch E. 21:26, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Somebody has already put new SIGCOV sources into the article... Desertarun (talk) 21:37, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Somebody added a handful of new sources. For example this one (WP:ROUTINE) and this one (WP:WEBCRIT: trivial coverage, brief summary of the nature of the content). While I gather that you would say that these are an example of SIGCOV, they really are not. Can you help me identify another source among the newly added ones that is better than the ones I have just linked?—Alalch E. 22:01, 23 June 2023 (UTC)


 *  Keep Delete I changed my mind. People who voted for deletion brought few good points.DarkHorseMayhem (talk) 18:50, 23 June 2023 (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.