Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zerodha (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Stifle (talk) 08:39, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Zerodha
AfDs for this article:


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

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. None of the references in the article meet the criteria and I can't find any. Existing references are either repeats of company announcements/information or articles that rely entirely on quotes/interviews with no "Independent Content" or mentions-in-passing.  HighKing++ 14:29, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Companies.  HighKing++ 14:29, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  HighKing++ 14:31, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete: as per nom. It's a WP:CHURN + WP:ADMASQ case. - Hatchens (talk) 09:21, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment: Please do not exercise non-admin closure rights on this AfD discussion as someone did last time. Instead, allow it to run its course and leave the decision to an administrator. It's a request. -Hatchens (talk) 09:48, 20 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep This vote is going to be iconic considering current environment but Zerodha has plenty of independent in-depth discussion. There is a complete case study on their success published by Indian Institute of Management Ahmedabad and then several more books talking about their journey . They definitely have some PR agency churning coverage but beyond that, there are many good sources that contribute to notability. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 17:10, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The "case study" was written as an exercise by students attending the Indian Institute of Management. While WP:SCHOLARSHIP allows for scholarly references, this one falls short and in my opinion fails as a RS. As for the rest - see WP:GHITS.  HighKing++ 15:10, 21 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep Surprised to see this at AFD again. In addition to the four sources I had posted at the previous AFD discussion, here's four more:   . A retail company operating at such scale almost always receives WP:SUSTAINED, in-depth coverage, though older sources may be harder to dig up due to the way Google's algorithms work. M4DU7 (talk) 16:54, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete Those four references are not indpendent, in-depth nor significant. The bloomberg is paid advertisement, the 3 and 4ths are a primary and not independent of the subject, failing WP:SIRS and WP:ORGIND and 1st reference is of a similar quality failing WP:SIRS.   scope_creep Talk  17:19, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete: Fails WP:NCORP and is a pure WP:ADMASQ article, based upon very strange referencing indeed. Twenty eight references for a nine paragraph article is WP:BOMBARD 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 18:05, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete based on a preliminary review. An article should speak for itself and should explain, without the need for the reader to check the references, how the subject is notable, in particular, how the company satisfies corporate notability.  Corporate notability is based on what third parties have written, not on what the company says about itself.  This article is about what the company says about itself.  This does not mean that the company is not notable, or that the company is notable.  It does mean that this article does not establish notability.  I have not checked the references, but the article has been reference-bombed and I should not be expected to check the references.  Robert McClenon ([[User talk:Robert McCl
 * Delete this is an advertisement. It contains a list of services (which happen to be the services any brokerage firm offers as a matter of course), it discusses their fee structure (all brokerage firms have  fee structure), it states some of the companies it has invested in (as do all such firms). It lists a variety of trivial awards, awards designed so a company will get one in its turn; it lists a reference to an academic analysis which HighKing has nicely explained as a student project. The news items about it are of various occasions of computer down time. This is the most trivia and ephemeral news imaginable: all we sites (includding WP) have them, and they are of interest only until they get fixed. The defense of the article by  refers to " several more books talking about their journey" This is the most obvious form of corporate jargon, and an argument using such terms indicate the inability to tell articles from spam.
 * There is however, a suitable place for this content, jargon and all: the company web site.  DGG ( talk ) 06:24, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete There's a lot of citation spamming and some use of self-published sources coming from the company, but my quick review also shows that article has a strongly promotional tone. Based on that conclusion its enough for me to consider this article as an advertisement.  Mario Jump  83!  07:16, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment How is the Bloomberg article an advertisement? I see that Marcus Wright and Michael Patterson are mentioned as the editors, and Rahul Satija the Mumbai reporter. It also mentions that it received inputs from Pei Yi Mak. All are/were Bloomberg editors/reporters. The India Today article is authored by Shwweta Punj, senior editor at India Today. The Business Standard article carries a very long, in-depth, independent commentary and that one is researched and written by Jyotindra Dubey who is now an associate editor at Economic Times. All three satisfy WP:ORGIND and WP:SIRS. I can see how that Forbes India article (and Forbes India in general) can be seen as unreliable. There are four more in-depth sources which I had posted at the previous AFD, all independently-written by staff/editors. The Ken also has detailed analysis of the company with articles like  . M4DU7 (talk) 00:56, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * There is a free workaround in case you are hit by a paywall, read the Bloomberg article on BNN Bloomberg and the Business Standard article using a Google AMP link (works on mobile). M4DU7 (talk) 01:23, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the workarounds. The Bloomberg reference relies entirely on information provided by the company and people associated with the company. Where's the in-depth "Independent Content" which is required as per WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND? The only content which might arguably be "clearly attributable" to a source unaffiliated with the topic company is towards the end, with the paragraph starting with "Zerodha's continued success is far from guaranteed" but those last 7 sentences do not provide any in-depth information. I'd call this a puff profile and PR. The India Today article attracts the exact same criticism - where's the in-depth "Independent Content"? It is another puff profile. If you are starting to get used to seeing the characteristics of puff profiles, then you won't need to be told that The Business Insider is also a puff profile. You say it "carries a very long, in-depth, independent commentary" - that's hard to swallow considering that practically every paragraph references a claim or announcement made by the company or contains a quote. They're not "Independent" enough to meet WP:ORGIND and what's left fails WP:CORPDEPTH.  HighKing++ 20:21, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I find it extremely hard to agree with your claim that editors from different parts of the world at Bloomberg News, which is seen as one of the most reliable sources at WP:RSP, are indulged in promotionalism. The only paragraphs with claims attributed to the company on that article are 4th, 8th, 14th and the last one. The Business Standard article is indeed independently authored, and one of the best sources on this company. Just because it carries a bunch of quotes from the company, we cannot disregard all the independent research on that article.
 * The phenomenon of admiration of stories of entrepreneurs, businesses, artists, sportspeople, etc, and disruption/success stories in general is very common across the media industry in the Indian subcontinent. But it doesn't necessarily mean that all these articles are sponsored "puff pieces". As someone from India, I see this on a daily basis even in print newspapers and on TV channels. We need to evaluate and assess the sources on a case-by-case basis. Generally, articles written by reputed editors and carrying independent commentary satisfy SIRS and ORGIND, unless there is evidence of material republished from a press release or there is unambiguous promotion of the product. Your definition of "puff piece" fits those articles that do not mention the editor's name and simply say bureau, newsdesk, agencies, PTI, etc. If we continue to discount editorial pieces that use an appreciative tone, we'll end up deleting a majority of articles on notable Indian companies based on the incorrect assumption that all media houses and journos in the country are on the company's payroll. M4DU7 (talk) 07:18, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * @M4DU7 Bloomberg aggregates news. Bloomberg also aggregates PR pieces. You need to learn to tell the difference. It's not hard. You are arguing very strongly to keep an article with poor references and poor notability. 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 07:46, 26 May 2022 (UTC)


 * delete Per HighKing's analysis of the sourcing. Much churn and promotion, not a lot of fire for the smoke. Rockphed (talk) 04:14, 26 May 2022 (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.