Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FanCode
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- FanCode (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No evidence of notability. WP:GNG not met Alphaonekannan (talk) 06:16, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Alphaonekannan (talk) 06:16, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- Keep: Enough coverage from multiple reliable sources such as TOI, The Hindu, Forbes etc. It indicates that the subject has received substantial independent media coverage, meeting key requirements of WP: NCORP. Lorenzo the great (talk) 08:11, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:29, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- Keep: Passes WP:SIGCOV per the significant mainstream coverage from the sources. Most of the sources are regarded as reliable and collectively appear to meet the criteria for notability.Akevsharma (talk) 11:06, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- Delete nothing but WP:MILL, PR spam and blackhat SEO. PRAXIDICAE🌈 12:30, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- Delete Funding rounds, funding rounds, announcements and funding rounds. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:44, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- Comment: Have a look at the source analysis table.
| Source | Independent? | Reliable? | Significant coverage? | Count source toward GNG? |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Major national business daily
|
The source discusses the subject directly and in detail
|
✔ Yes | |
|
|
Written by Forbes staff which is reliable under WP:FORBES
|
The source discusses the subject directly and in detail
|
✔ Yes | |
|
|
The source is the third largest national newspaper by circulation
|
Discuss the subject briefly, which count towards GNG
|
✔ Yes | |
|
|
Major business focused national daily
|
The article discusses the subject directly and in detail
|
✔ Yes | |
| This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}. | ||||
The sources are reliable comprehensive, independent, and they meet the criteria both for WP:SIGCOV and WP:CORPDEPTH]. Akevsharma (talk) 13:52, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- Keep: I believe that WP:CORPDEPTH is met and this goes well beyond the routine coverage based on the source analysis done by Akevsharma. It is indeed difficult to accept that a company with 50 million customers falls under WP:MILL. How is it even possible that these sources published by the leading national medias falls under PR spam? Ken Tony Shall we discuss? 06:10, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:43, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete WP:NCORP's WP:ORGIND defines "Independent Content" and almost all of the sources in the article and above are based on interviews and information provided by the company and their execs. None of that is "Independent Content" when it is simply repeating information created and put out by the company. Saying "meets CORPDEPTH" doesn't amount to meeting NCORP if the in-depth information was provided by the company. HighKing++ 16:05, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- Keep: According to Akevsharma's detailed review of the sources above, which points out the reliable significant media coverage. I agree some of them are are mainly interviews, but do not agree to the argument that these are not independent sources. WP:INDEPENDENT describes that a third-party source is independent if they are unaffiliated with the subject. These sources are published by some third parties with original analysis from editors who have no connection with this company. This makes them independent. Hence this meets WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:SIGCOV. ChristinaNY (talk) 17:48, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- Comment: Majority of these sources provide detailed analysis along with statements from some interviews. How does this not make it an independent source.? A source is independent if it contain independent analysis and fact-checking. I'm clearly seeing that here. Some of these sources which included pieces from some interviews doesn't change the fact that they are independent. Highking probably only saw the interview part in it and missed the rest. Akevsharma (talk) 00:59, 5 July 2022 (UTC)